Connecticut v. Doehr - Connecticut v. Doehr 501 U.S. 1...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Connecticut v. Doehr 501 U.S. 1 (1991) Fact: Operative Facts: DiGiovanni attached a home to his claim against Doehr. DiGiovanni attached it to a civil suit, which he was claiming assault and battery charges, and didn’t post a bond either. This was because of Connecticut laws. There were the expressed options given to DiGiovanni, 1) claim that no probable cause existed to sustain the claim 2) Request the attachment be vacated, modified, or that a bond be substituted. 3) Claim that some portion of the property was exempt from execution. He instead filed suit stating that it was unconstitutional. Issue: Whether the attachment without notice violated the Due process clause of the 5 th and 14 th amendment. Rule: Rational: 3 fold analysis. (Because this is citizen to citizen, not government to citizen) 1) Consideration of the private interest that will be affected by the prejudgement measure a. Things such as risking default in mortgages, affects on credit, reduces the ability to obtain a loan, it clouds title, this is all more than enough to require due process
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 12/20/2011 for the course CIV PRO 141 taught by Professor Daucher during the Fall '11 term at Western State Colorado University .

Ask a homework question - tutors are online