Calfee v. Usman
Supreme Court of Connecticut
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBerdon, J.
I concur with the majority that the provisions for prejudgment remedy in General Statutes §§ 52-278c and 52-278d are not unconstitutionally vague on their face. I agree that a prejudgment remedy in the form of an attachment on real estate based upon probable cause after the defendant is afforded an adversary hearing1 passes constitutional muster, but only if reasonable protections are afforded to the defendant if the plaintiff is not successful on the underlying claim.
My dissent focuses on the safeguards necessary to protect the defendant from the possibility of an erroneous attachment. The…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Gerstein v. PughSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Connecticut v. DoehrSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Blake v. LevySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
- Vandersluis v. WeilSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1978
- Hydro Air of Connecticut, Inc. v. Versa Technologies, Inc.District Court, D. Connecticut · 1983