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; 1991 U.S. LEXIS 3317 |
Case history | |
Prior | 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 or 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, Marshall, Blackmun, 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 |
Part of a series on the |
Law of Connecticut
|
---|
WikiProject Connecticut |
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, a showing of extraordinary circumstances, or a requirement that the plaintiff post a bond violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.