North Georgia Finishing (Plaintiff-Appellant) v.

Di-Chem (Defendant-Appellee)
419 U.S. 601, 95 S.Ct. 719

Facts:
- P sued D claiming they owed 51K for goods bought from the P
- GA law authorized a writ of garnishment if the P or its attorney submitted an affadvit
stating the amount claiming to be due and asserting they have some reason to apprehend
the loss
- The clerk of the court issued a summons of garnishment to the D’s bank which froze their
assets

Issue:
- Does the GA statute violate the due process clause?

Holding:
- Yes

Reasoning: White, J.
- The court held that the GA courts had failed to take account of the Fuentes decision
- The fact that there was not notice or right to be heard element to the statute, combined
with the lack of procedural safeguards to ensure accuracy made the statute
unconstitutional
- Specifically, the fact that the affidavit only needed to state conclusory statements and not
specific facts and could be filed by the company’s attorney combined with the fact that a
clerk and not a neutral judge could issue the writ all went in to the court’s analysis that
the statute was unconstitutional
- The GA law also did not have the right to an immediate hearing that helped save the
statute in Mitchell