Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Connecticut v. Doehr

Conn. v. Doehr, 501 U.S. 1 (1991)

Type: Opinion
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1991-06-06
Topic: estate-planning

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. *31Haslip, 499 U.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Connecticut v. Doehr. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

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.