City of Seattle v. Rogers Clothing for Men
Washington Supreme Court
787 P.2d 39 (1990)

- Written by Darius Dehghan, JD
Facts
The city of Seattle (the city) (plaintiff) passed an ordinance (the ordinance) that established the Downtown Seattle Retail Core Business Improvement Area (the business-improvement area). The ordinance imposed a special assessment on business owners within the business-improvement area. The assessment was used to fund a variety of services in the business-improvement area, including cleaning, decorating, landscaping, and advertising. These services were provided directly to the businesses in the business-improvement area. But the services also benefited businesses that were outside the business-improvement area. The city thus apportioned the cost of the services between the city’s funds and the business-improvement area’s funds. The cost imposed on the business-improvement area for the services was proportionate to the benefit the business-improvement area received from the services. Rogers Clothing for Men, Inc. (Rogers) (defendant) was a retailer located in the business-improvement area. The city brought suit against Rogers, seeking to collect the special assessment that had been levied against Rogers. Rogers contended that the ordinance was unconstitutional. The municipal court found that the ordinance was constitutional, and the superior court affirmed. Rogers appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Andersen, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.