Connecticut v. Doehr 501 U.S 1, (1991)
Cause of Action: Does a state statute which authorizes prejudgement attachment of real estate without prior notice of extraordinary circumstances and without a requirement that the person seeking the attachment post a bond, satisfy the Due Process Clause of the 14th?
Facts: 1. Petitioner filed an attachment against Doehr’s home, in the amount of $75,000, in conjunction with a pending civil action for assault and battery against respondent. It was granted on petitioner’s affidavit as the only evidence.
2. The property was attached and then Doehr was notified of the attachment, which stipulated his right to a hearing.
Rationale: 1. This is a violation of the rights of defendant without due process
and lack of reasonable cause.
2. The risk of erroneous deprivation is great when attachment is one-sided. An affidavit does not warrant probable cause.
3. The fact of being able to request a hearing after the fact is not enough protection.
4. The requiring of providing a hearing before attachment would not create an undue burden if the hearing is offered afterwards anyway.