Connecticut v. Doehr
115 L. Ed. 2d 1 · Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
Facts
Petitioner John F. DiGiovanni applied to a Connecticut Superior Court for a $75,000 prejudgment attachment on respondent Brian K. Doehr’s home in Meriden, Connecticut. This action was taken in conjunction with a civil suit for assault and battery that DiGiovanni was initiating against Doehr. The suit did not involve Doehr’s real estate, and DiGiovanni had no pre-existing interest in Doehr’s property. Connecticut law allowed prejudgment attachment of real estate without prior notice or hearing, and without requiring the plaintiff to post a bond, based on a showing of probable cause. DiGiovanni submitted an affidavit detailing the alleged assault and his injuries. A Superior Court Judge found probable cause and ordered the attachment, which was executed four days later. Doehr received notice of the attachment only after it had occurred and had not yet been served with the complaint.
Procedural history
DiGiovanni applied for the attachment in Connecticut Superior Court. Doehr then filed suit against DiGiovanni in Federal District Court, challenging the constitutionality of the Connecticut statute under the Due Process Clause. The District Court upheld the statute and granted summary judgment for DiGiovanni. On appeal, a divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed, finding the statute violated due process. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the conflict of authority.
Issue
Does a state statute that authorizes prejudgment attachment of real estate without prior notice or hearing, without a showing of extraordinary circumstances, and without a requirement that the person seeking the attachment post a bond, satisfy the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Holding
No, as applied to this case, the Connecticut statute authorizing prejudgment attachment without prior notice or hearing, without a showing of extraordinary circumstances, and without a bond requirement, violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Rule
The Due Process Clause requires consideration of three factors when evaluating prejudgment remedies between private parties: (1) the private interest affected by the measure; (2) the risk of erroneous deprivation through the procedures used and the probable value of additional safeguards; and (3) the interest of the party seeking the remedy, with regard for any government interest. The Court found Doehr's property interest significant, the risk of erroneous deprivation substantial due to vague probable cause standards and one-sided submissions in a fact-specific tort case, and the plaintiff's interest minimal without a pre-existing interest or exigent circumstances. Therefore, due process generally requires a pre-attachment hearing or a showing of exigent circumstances, and a bond, to adequately protect against erroneous deprivation.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.