In the case of North Georgia Finishing, Inc. v. Di-Chem, Inc., 1974, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a Georgia law allowing creditors to seize debtor's property without prior notice or hearing violated due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court held that such seizures could only be justified in extraordinary situations where there was an immediate danger that a debtor would destroy or hide disputed assets before they could be attached through legal proceedings. In this case, Di-Chem had obtained a writ from a local court authorizing it to seize certain assets belonging to North Georgia Finishing as security for an alleged debt. However, since there was no evidence suggesting any imminent risk of loss and because North Georgia Finishing wasn't given any opportunity for hearing before its property was seized; hence it constituted deprivation of property without due process of law.

In the dissenting opinion for North Georgia Finishing, Inc. v. Di-Chem, Inc., Justice William Rehnquist argued that the majority's decision to invalidate a Georgia statute allowing prejudgment garnishment without prior notice or hearing was an overreach of judicial authority and inconsistent with precedent. He contended that the Court had previously upheld similar statutes in other states and there was no compelling reason to treat this case differently. Furthermore, he believed it wasn't necessary for due process rights to be protected before a deprivation of property occurred; instead, they could be adequately safeguarded by post-deprivation remedies such as damages suits against wrongful garnishers or appeals processes within state law itself. In his view, these were sufficient safeguards against arbitrary government action without requiring immediate hearings which might burden court systems unnecessarily.