In the 1999 case of Donald H. Brancato v. Priscilla F. Gunn et al., the U.S Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a Connecticut law that allowed for prejudgment attachment of real estate without prior notice or hearing, and without showing extraordinary circumstances, violated due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiff, Donald H. Brancato had his property attached by Priscilla F.Gunn as part of a commercial dispute over an alleged debt owed by him to her company. The court held that such attachments did indeed violate due process rights because they deprived individuals of significant property interests without providing them with any opportunity to challenge it before it occurs - thus violating principles fundamental fairness embodied in Due Process Clause. This ruling effectively invalidated similar laws across many states which permitted prejudgment attachment procedures on grounds that these were unconstitutional as they failed to provide adequate procedural safeguards against erroneous deprivation.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Donald H. Brancato v. Priscilla F. Gunn et al., 1999, argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Connecticut law prohibiting non-attorneys from representing corporations in small claims court was incorrect and infringed on the rights of businesses. The dissent contended that this ruling would place an undue burden on small businesses who may not have access to or be able to afford legal representation for such minor disputes, thereby limiting their ability to seek justice within the system. Furthermore, it was suggested that allowing non-lawyers with sufficient knowledge and understanding of business matters could adequately represent a corporation without causing harm or injustice to either party involved in these cases.