First Covenant Church of Seattle v. Seattle
Washington Supreme Court
787 P.2d 1352 (1990)
- Written by Jody Stuart, JD
Facts
First Covenant Church of Seattle (Covenant) (plaintiff) owned and operated a church building used exclusively for religious purposes. The City of Seattle (city) (defendant) then designated the church as a landmark. Under a landmark-preservation ordinance and a landmark-designation ordinance, Covenant was required to obtain city approval before changing the church’s exterior. The application of the ordinances to the church greatly diminished the church’s property value. The landmark-designation ordinance provided that proposed changes to the church’s exterior based on liturgy would be approved, but only after Covenant submitted its plans to and negotiated possible alternatives with the city. Covenant brought an action in state trial court against the city, asserting that the application of the landmark ordinances to churches was unconstitutional. In a motion for summary judgment, the city stated that the explicit liturgical exception in the landmark-designation ordinance meant that changes to Covenant’s church exterior for religious purposes were exempt from the usual approval requirement. The trial court granted the city’s summary judgment. Covenant appealed, and the court of appeals certified the appeal.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Dore, J.)
Concurrence (Utter, J.)
Dissent (Dolliver, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 820,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 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.