Connecticut and John F. Digiovanni v. Brian K. Doehr
The Court held that a state statute allowing prejudgment attachment of a defendant's real property without prior notice or hearing, extraordinary circumstances, or a bond requirement violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.· AI-written
501 U.S. 1 · No. 90-143 · 1990 term · Rehnquist Court
Decided Jun 6, 1991 · argued Jan 7, 1991
Civil rights · Debtors' rights
Struck down a state law
Majority opinion: Byron White
The voteMajority
9–09 in the majority, 0 in dissent
No dissent (9–0)
Affirmed. Connecticut and John F. Digiovanni lost.
What this ruling means
Affirmed: the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, so it stands (sometimes with changes the Court made to it).
Connecticut and John F. Digiovanni was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Lost” means the Court did not give that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Connecticut v. Doehr, 501 U.S. 1 (1991), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a state statute authorizing prejudgment attachment of a defendant's real property upon the filing of an action without prior notice or hearing, a showing of extraordinary circumstances, or a requirement that the plaintiff post a bond violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1990 term. Filled: the 9 in the majority. Hollow: the 0 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(9)
Byron WhiteWrote the majority opinion
Antonin ScaliaWrote a concurrence
William RehnquistWrote a concurrence
Thurgood MarshallJoined the majority
John StevensJoined the majority
Harry BlackmunJoined the majority
David SouterJoined the majority
Sandra O'ConnorJoined the majority
Anthony KennedyJoined the majority
Dissent(0)
- None.
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- Connecticut and John F. DigiovanniState (Connecticut)
- Respondent
- Brian K. DoehrOwner, landlord, or claimant to ownership, fee interest, or possession of land as well as chattels
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
- Why it was taken
- A federal court and a state court had ruled differently
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- Fourteenth Amendment (due process)
- Kind of law
- Constitutional Amendment
- Decided by
- Judicial review (state level)
- Struck down
- A state law, as unconstitutional
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Jun 6, 1991DecidedDecided · Decided 9–0: affirmed. Connecticut and John F. Digiovanni lost.
- Jan 7, 1991ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari). A federal court and a state court had ruled differently.
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit: reversed, with a dissent.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the Connecticut U.S. District Court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
16 other argued cases since 1946 on debtors' rights, newest first.
- Midland Funding LLC v. Johnson137 S. Ct. 1407May 15, 2017 · 137 S. Ct. 1407Civil rights5–36–3 band
- Sheriff v. Gillie578 U.S. 317May 16, 2016 · 578 U.S. 317Civil rights8–0Unanimous band
- Radlax Gateway Hotel, LLC, et al. v. Amalgamated Bank566 U.S. 639May 29, 2012 · 566 U.S. 639Civil rights8–0Unanimous band
- Karen L. Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich Lpa, et al.559 U.S. 573Apr 21, 2010 · 559 U.S. 573Civil rights7–27–2 band
- Langley et ux. v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation484 U.S. 86Dec 1, 1987 · 484 U.S. 86Civil rights8–0Unanimous band
- Third National Bank in Nashville v. Impac Limited, Inc., et al.432 U.S. 312Jun 17, 1977 · 432 U.S. 312Civil rights6–36–3 band
- North Georgia Finishing, Inc. v. Di-Chem, Inc.419 U.S. 601Jan 22, 1975 · 419 U.S. 601Civil rights6–36–3 band
- Calero-Toledo et al. v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co.416 U.S. 663May 15, 1974 · 416 U.S. 663Civil rights7–27–2 band
- Mitchell v. W. T. Grant Co.416 U.S. 600May 13, 1974 · 416 U.S. 600Civil rights5–45–4 band
- Fuentes v. Shevin, Attorney General of Florida, et al.407 U.S. 67Jun 12, 1972 · 407 U.S. 67Civil rights4–36–3 band
- Lynch et al. v. Household Finance Corp. et al.405 U.S. 538Mar 23, 1972 · 405 U.S. 538Civil rights7–0Unanimous band
- Swarb et al. v. Lennox et al.405 U.S. 191Feb 24, 1972 · 405 U.S. 191Civil rights6–18–1 band
- D. H. Overmyer Co., Inc., of Ohio et al. v. Frick Co.405 U.S. 174Feb 24, 1972 · 405 U.S. 174Civil rights7–0Unanimous band
- Lindsey et al. v. Normet et al.405 U.S. 56Feb 23, 1972 · 405 U.S. 56Civil rights5–27–2 band
- Simmons et ux. v. West Haven Housing Authority399 U.S. 510Jun 29, 1970 · 399 U.S. 510Civil rights6–27–2 band
- Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp. of Bay View et al.395 U.S. 337Jun 9, 1969 · 395 U.S. 337Civil rights7–18–1 band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.