Citation network
Connecticut Vs. Doehr
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 06, 1991
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 1 (1991) U.S. Supreme Court Connecticut v. DoehrSearch
-
U.S. 1 (1991) Connecticut v. DoehrSearch
-
alia, it permitted ex parte attachment absent a showing of extraordinary circumstances, see, e.g., Mitchell v. W.TSearch
-
may have in providing the procedure or forgoing the added burden of providing greater protections. Cf. Mathews v. EldridgeSearch
-
to property rights that such encumbrances entail are sufficient to merit due process protection. See, e.g., Peralta v. HeightsSearch
-
had yet to be served with the complaint, which is ordinarily necessary for an action to commence in Connecticut. Young v. MargiottaSearch
-
The District Court upheld the statute and granted summary judgment in favor of DiGiovanni. Pinsky v. DuncanSearch
-
Conn.1989). On appeal, a divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed. Pinsky v. DuncanSearch
-
The rule to be derived from Sniadach v. FamilySearch
-
Id. at 855. This conclusion was deemed to be consistent with our decision in Mitchell v. W.TSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Id. at 416 U. S. 609 -610. Similarly, in Mathews v. EldridgeSearch
-
b) in Fermont Division, Dynamics Corp. of America v. SmithSearch
-
attachment or similar procedure. Our cases reflect the numerous variations this type of remedy can entail. In Sniadach v. FamilySearch
-
a creditor to effect prejudgment garnishment of wages without notice and prior hearing to the wage earner. In Fuentes v. ShevinSearch
-
or alienation of the encumbered property . Id. at 416 U. S. 615 -618. In North Georgia Finishing, Inc. v. DiChemSearch
-
supra, 424 U.S. at 424 U. S. 334 (quoting Cafeteria Workers v. McElroySearch
-
Tulsa Professional Collection Services, Inc. v. PopeSearch
-
entails primarily affects not the government, but the party seeking control of the other's property. See Fuentes v. ShevinSearch
-
But the Court has never held that only such extreme deprivations trigger due process concern. See Buchanan v. WarleySearch
-
Peralta v. HeightsSearch
-
Hodge v. MuscatineSearch
-
contingency -- the award of damages to the plaintiff which the defendant may not be able to satisfy. See Ownbey v. MorganSearch
-
Ledgebrook Condominium Assn. v. LuskSearch
-
Anderson v. NedovichSearch
-
a)(1) action may be brought as a counterclaim. Hydro Air of Connecticut, Inc. v. VersaSearch
-
a fact that encourages the use of attachments as a tactical device to pressure an opponent to capitulate. Blake v. LevySearch
-
cause to commence an action constitutes a complete defense, even if the advice was unsound or erroneous. Vandersluis v. WeilSearch
-
of the defendant and the plaintiff accurately, due process generally requires all of the above. Page 501 U. S. 24 V BecauseSearch
-
Our summary affirmance in Spielman-Fond, Inc. v. Hanson'sSearch
-
not enjoy the full precedential value of a case argued on the merits and disposed of by a written opinion. Edelman v. JordanSearch
-
counters that the post-attachment hearing is available upon request. See Fermont Division, Dynamics Corp. of America v. SmithSearch
-
One State, Pennsylvania, has not had an attachment statute or rule since the decision in Jonnet v. DollarSearch
-
under a judgment, without the respondent filing a cross-petition for certiorari. E.g., Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. ThurstonSearch
-
when it bases its holding of unconstitutionality of the Connecticut statute as applied here on our cases of Sniadach v. FamilySearch
-
Mitchell v. W.TSearch
-
Grant Co., 416 U. S. 600 (1974), and North Georgia Finishing v. Di-ChemSearch
-
and I would point out, more emphatically than the Court does, the limits of today's holding. In Spielman-Fond, Inc. v. Hanson'sSearch
-
the purpose of these statutes. Petitioner, in its brief, relies in part on our summary affirmance in Bartlett v. WilliamsSearch
-
the only cases dealing with real property cited in the Court's opinion, Peralta v. HeightsSearch
-
Medical Center, Inc., 485 U. S. 80 , 485 U. S. 85 (1988), and Hodge v. MuscatineSearch
-
today's decision with the almost casual statement of Justice Holmes, writing for a unanimous Court in Coffin Brothers v. BennettSearch
-
Since the manner of attachment here was not a recognized procedure at common law, cf. 499 U. S. Co. v. PageSearch
-
agree that its validity under the Due Process Clause should be determined by applying the test we set forth in Mathews v. EldridgeSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Connecticut v. DoehrSearch
-
Cf. Mathews v. EldridgeSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial