Connecticut v. Doehr
| Connecticut v. Doehr | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued January 7, 1991 Decided June 6, 1991 |
|
| Full case name | Connecticut v. Brian K. Doehr |
| Citations | 501 U.S. 1 (more)
111 S.Ct. 2105; 115 L.Ed.2d 1
|
| Prior history | Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit |
| Holding | |
| A state law authorizing the prejudgment attachment of a defendant's real property at the outset of a lawsuit, without notice to the defendant or a hearing and without any showing of extraordinary circumstances, violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. | |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | White, joined by unanimous (Parts I, III); Rehnquist, Blackmun, Marshall, Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter (Part II) |
| Plurality | White, joined by Marshall, Stevens, O'Connor (Parts IV, V) |
| Concurrence | Rehnquist, joined by Blackmun |
| Concurrence | Scalia |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. XIV | |
Connecticut v. Doehr, 501 U.S. 1 (1991), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a state statute authorizing prejudgment attachment of a defendant's real property upon the filing of an action, without prior notice or hearing, without a showing of extraordinary circumstances, and without a requirement that the plaintiff post a bond, violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
A Connecticut statute, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-278e(a)(1), provided that when a civil lawsuit was commenced, the plaintiff could ask a judge to attach any real property that the defendant owned, for the purpose of ensuring that the plaintiff would be able to collect any judgment that eventually resulted from the suit. The attachment impaired the defendant's ownership rights in the property, such as by clouding title to the property and making it impossible to sell or mortgage the property.
Under the Connecticut procedure, attachments were based solely on the plaintiff's submitting a "verification" (equivalent to an affidavit) asserting that there existed probable cause to sustain the validity of his or her claim. There was no requirement that prior notice of the attachment be provided to the defendant, that any hearing be held before the property was attached, that the property have anything to do with the subject-matter of the lawsuit, or that any unusual or extraordinary circumstances be shown.
In 1988, John F. DiGiovanni sued Brian K. Doehr for $75,000 for assault and battery in Connecticut Superior Court. DiGiovanni moved for Doehr's real property to be attached, submitting a five-sentence affidavit opining that there was a good basis for his claim. The judge ordered the attachment. Doehr received no notice of the proceedings until after the sheriff had levied the attachment. The notice advised Doehr that he could request a post-attachment hearing if he wished.
Doehr filed a federal complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, contending that the Connecticut pre-judgment attachment procedure violated his constitutional right to due process. The District Court upheld the statute, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed, concluding that the statute was unconstitutional because it authorized ex parte attachments without a showing of extraordinary circumstances and without a hearing.
...
Wikipedia