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; 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.