Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Connecticut v. Doehr

Supreme Court of the United States · 1991 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedurePrejudgment attachmentProcedural due processDue Process ClauseFourteenth Amendmentprejudgment remedyattachment of real propertyex parte attachment

Facts

DiGiovanni sought to bring a Connecticut civil action for assault and battery against Doehr and applied for a $75,000 prejudgment attachment on Doehr's home. He had no pre-existing interest in the property, and the tort suit did not involve the real estate itself. Connecticut law allowed attachment of real property without prior notice or hearing upon a sworn showing of probable cause, and DiGiovanni submitted only a short, conclusory affidavit repeating his assault allegations. A judge approved the attachment ex parte, the sheriff attached the home, and Doehr received notice only afterward.

Issue

Whether Connecticut's statute authorizing prejudgment attachment of real estate without prior notice or hearing, without a showing of extraordinary circumstances, and without requiring the plaintiff to post a bond, satisfies the Due Process Clause as applied here. More specifically, the case asked whether an ex parte attachment in an ordinary tort action by a plaintiff with no pre-existing interest in the property provides constitutionally adequate process.

Rule

For prejudgment attachment disputes between private parties, due process is evaluated by considering: (1) the private interest affected by the attachment; (2) the risk of erroneous deprivation under the challenged procedures and the probable value of additional safeguards; and (3) the interest of the party seeking the prejudgment remedy, with due regard for any ancillary governmental interest. Under that analysis, absent a pre-existing interest or properly supported exigent circumstances, a state may not authorize ex parte prejudgment attachment of real property without prior notice and hearing when the procedure poses a substantial risk of error.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Columbus, Ohio, Maya Rios sues Evan Pike for defamation and seeks an ex parte prejudgment attachment on Evan's duplex. Under the state statute, the attachment does not dispossess Evan, but it is recorded immediately and prevents refinancing without clearing the encumbrance.

If Evan argues that due process is not implicated because he remains in possession of the duplex, what is the best response?

Explanation. The majority held that attachment of real property triggers due process protection even without physical dispossession. A recorded attachment can cloud title, impair sale or borrowing, taint credit, and create mortgage problems. The fact that the owner keeps possession does not eliminate the constitutional deprivation.