Legal Opinion
Shaumyan v. O'NEILL
District Court, D. Connecticut
Decided June 27, 1989No. Civ. N-87-463(AHN)PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RULING ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
NEVAS, District Judge.
The plaintiffs in this 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 action are consumers who were sued in Connecticut state court by commercial entities for alleged breaches of contracts. At the inception of that litigation, the state court plaintiffs employed section 52-278e(a)(l) of the Connecticut General Statutes to obtain ex parte prejudgment attachments on the consumers’ real property. 1 The federal court plaintiffs raise various constitutional challenges to the facial validity of that provision, which reads in relevant part:
The court or a…
2Cases cited57 opinions
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Younger v. HarrisSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Board of Regents of State Colleges v. RothSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Morrissey v. BrewerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
52 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Pinsky v. DuncanCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1990
- Sebastian Shaumyan and Maria Shaumyan v. Shawn Mark O'neill, New Haven Firefighters Credit Union, Sidetex Co., Inc. And Steven RolnickCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1993
- New Destiny Development Corp. v. PiccioneDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 1992
- Shaumyan v. O'NEILLDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 1992
- LOZANO v. SUPERIOR COURT OF MAINEDistrict Court, D. Maine · 2020
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.