Walsh v. Edward J. Gerrits, Inc.
This text of 24 V.I. 118 (Walsh v. Edward J. Gerrits, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, Virgin Islands primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Mike Walsh filed a motion for a writ of prejudgment attachment with the filing of the complaint. Section 251 of title 5, V.I. Code Ann. (1967) authorizes the Clerk of Court to issue the writ. The statute, however, is unconstitutional on its face for its total failure to safeguard the defendant’s due process rights. North Georgia Finishing, Inc. v. Di-Chem, Inc., 419 U.S. 601 (1975); Mitchell v. W. T. Grant Co., 416 U.S. 600 (1974); Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67 (1972); Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp., 395 U.S. 337 (1969). The Supreme Court has held in the above cases that due process requires that the defendant be afforded notice and opportunity for a hearing and participation of a judicial officer, when his property is seized. Our local statute completely ignores [119]*119fourteenth amendment principles of due process.
The premises considered, now therefore it is
ORDERED:
THAT plaintiff’s motion for a writ of prejudgment attachment is DENIED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
24 V.I. 118, 1988 WL 1625354, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11905, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walsh-v-edward-j-gerrits-inc-vid-1988.