Connecticut v. Doehr.html



Connecticut v. Doehr
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued January 7, 1991 Decided June 6, 1991
Full case name: Connecticut v. Brian K. Doehr Citations: 501 U.S. 1 (see 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
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-278e(a)(1) is in violation of the requirements of due process.
Court membership
Chief Justice: William Rehnquist Associate Justices: Byron White, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter
Case opinions
Majority by: White Joined by: Rehnquist, Blackmun, Marshall, Stevens, O'Connor, Souter Concurrence by: Rehnquist Joined by: Blackmun Concurrence by: Scalia

Connecticut v. Doehr, 501 U.S. 1 (1991), was a recent case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that 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, does not satisfy the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.^{citation needed}

See also

• List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 501

Further reading

• Alquist, E. A. (1993). "Balancing the Checklist: Connecticut's Legislative Response to Connecticut v. Doehr". Connecticut Law Review 26: 721. ISSN 00106151. 
• Beale, L. (1993). "Connecticut v. Doehr and Procedural Due Process Values: The Sniadach Tetrad Revisited". Cornell Law Review 79: 1603. ISSN 00108847. 
• Levy, J. G. (1992). "LIS Pendens and Procedural Due Process: A Closer Look after Connecticut v. Doehr". Maryland Law Review 51: 1054. ISSN 00254282. 

External links

• ^ 501 U.S. 1 Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com.

This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.