Opinion | Syllabus | Concurrence | Concurrence |
---|---|---|---|
HTML version WordPerfect version | HTML version WordPerfect version | HTML version WordPerfect version | HTML version WordPerfect version |
CONNECTICUT v. DOEHR
No.
CONNECTICUT and JOHN F. DIGIOVANNI, PETITIONERS v. BRIAN K. DOEHR
[
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 Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Haslip, 499 U. S. —, — (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.