# Connecticut v. Doehr

> Supreme Court of the United States · June 6, 1991 · 501 U.S. 1

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9432321

## Case

- **Full name:** CONNECTICUT Et Al. v. DOEHR
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** June 6, 1991
- **Citations:** 501 U.S. 1; 111 S. Ct. 2105; 115 L. Ed. 2d 1; 1991 U.S. LEXIS 3317
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Scalia
- **Judges:** White, Rehnquist, Scalia
- **Cited by:** 474 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9432321

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that a court may excuse exhaustion if petitioner demonstrates: (1) “cause for the default and actual prejudice as a result of the alleged violation of federal law,” or (2) “that failure to consider the claims will result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice”
- holding that ex parte determination of probable cause is insufficient under due process clause for nonpossessory lien such as attachment
- stating that a postsequestration hearing provides sufficient process for filing a notice of lis pen-dens, as the filing party already claims an interest in the property that he seeks to enforce through a concurrent lawsuit
- stating that a postsequestration hearing provides sufficient process for filing a notice of lis pendens, as the filing party already claims an interest in the property that he seeks to enforce through a concurrent lawsuit
- noting that the plaintiff “had no existing interest in Doehr’s real estate when he sought the attachment”

## Opinion text

Justice Scalia,
concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
Since the manner of attachment here was not a recognized procedure at common law, cf. Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. *31 Haslip, 499 U. S. 1, 24 (1991) (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment), I agree that its validity under the Due Process Clause should be determined by applying the test we set forth in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U. S. 319 (1976); and I agree that it fails that test. I join Parts I and III of the Court’s opinion, and concur in the judgment of the Court.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9432321. Public record. Not legal advice.