Connecticut v. Doehr

501 U.S. 1 (1991)

Quick Summary

Quick Summary Icon

John F. DiGiovanni (plaintiff) sought to attach Brian K. Doehr’s (defendant) home alongside an assault and battery claim. Connecticut law allowed such attachment without prior notice or a bond. Doehr challenged this process as unconstitutional.

The issue presented to the Supreme Court was whether this prejudgment attachment process violated due process rights. The Court concluded that it did, emphasizing the need for procedural safeguards like notice and hearing to prevent wrongful property deprivations.

Facts of the Case

Facts of the case Icon

Brian K. Doehr (defendant) faced a lawsuit filed by John F. DiGiovanni (plaintiff) alleging assault and battery. Alongside the lawsuit, DiGiovanni applied for a pre-judgment attachment on Doehr’s home, valued at $75,000, to secure potential damages.

Under Connecticut law, such an attachment could be granted without notifying Doehr or requiring a bond from DiGiovanni. Consequently, Doehr’s property was attached without his prior knowledge, and he was only informed after the fact.

Doehr challenged the constitutionality of this statute, claiming it violated due process by permitting property attachment without a hearing or bond. The District Court upheld the statute, but on appeal, the Second Circuit Court reversed the decision, leading to the involvement of the Supreme Court.

Procedural Posture and History

History Icon
  1. John F. DiGiovanni filed an assault and battery lawsuit against Brian K. Doehr and concurrently applied for a pre-judgment attachment of Doehr’s home.
  2. The Connecticut Superior Court granted the attachment without prior notice or hearing.
  3. Doehr was informed of the attachment post-grant and challenged the statute’s constitutionality in federal court.
  4. The District Court upheld the statute.
  5. The Second Circuit Court reversed the District Court’s decision.
  6. The State of Connecticut intervened and appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.

I.R.A.C. Format


Issue Icon

Whether a state statute authorizing prejudgment attachment of real estate without prior notice or hearing, without showing extraordinary circumstances, and without requiring a bond violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Rule of Law

Rule Icon

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that any significant deprivation of property by the State is subject to procedural safeguards to prevent wrongful deprivations.

Reasoning and Analysis

Reasoning Icon

The Supreme Court determined that Doehr’s property interests were significantly affected by the prejudgment attachment which clouded his title and impaired his ability to deal with his property. While acknowledging that such attachments do not constitute a total deprivation of property, the Court emphasized that even partial impairments warrant due process protections.

The Court found that the risk of erroneous deprivation under Connecticut’s statute was substantial because it allowed for attachment based solely on a plaintiff’s affidavit without a hearing or exigency requirement. The potential for wrongful attachments was deemed too high given the one-sided nature of the evidence presented to judges.

Finally, the Supreme Court concluded that the plaintiff’s interests in securing assets for potential judgment did not justify impairing Doehr’s property rights without a hearing or bond, especially since there was no allegation that Doehr was disposing of or encumbering his property in a way that would jeopardize DiGiovanni’s ability to collect a future judgment.


Conclusion Icon

The Supreme Court held that the Connecticut statute did not satisfy the requirements of due process as applied in this case, thereby invalidating the prejudgment attachment of Doehr’s home without prior notice or hearing.

Key Takeaways

Takeaway Icon
  1. The Court emphasized that due process protections apply to partial as well as total deprivations of property rights.
  2. Connecticut’s statute was deemed unconstitutional because it permitted prejudgment attachment without ensuring procedural safeguards against erroneous deprivations.
  3. The plaintiff’s interest in securing assets for potential judgment did not outweigh the defendant’s due process rights absent a hearing or exigency requirement.

Relevant FAQs of this case

What procedural safeguards are typically required before a state can deprive an individual of property?

Before a state can deprive an individual of property, the Due Process Clause typically requires notice and an opportunity for a hearing to challenge the deprivation. The notice must be timely and provide adequate information about the action, and the hearing should be fair and provide an opportunity to present objections.

  • For example: If a city wants to seize private land for public use, it must inform the owner in advance and offer a chance to dispute the taking in court.

How do courts balance government interests against individual's due process rights in property cases?

Courts balance government interests against individual’s due process rights by applying a balancing test that considers the private interest affected, the risk of erroneous deprivation, the value of additional safeguards, and the government’s interest including function and fiscal impact.

  • For example: When implementing property taxes, governments must ensure accurate assessments to prevent excessive taxation, respecting homeowners’ rights while collecting revenue for public services.

Can pre-judgment remedies be issued without a preliminary hearing? If so, under what circumstances?

Pre-judgment remedies like attachment or garnishment can sometimes be issued without a preliminary hearing if there is a significant risk that the party will remove or conceal assets. However, even in such cases, procedural safeguards like prompt post-remedy hearings are generally required.

  • For example: A court might allow freezing of bank accounts if there is evidence suggesting that a debtor is transferring funds out to evade potential judgments.


Last updated

Was this case brief helpful?

More Case Briefs in Civil Procedure