Bennis v. Michigan
Significance, Michigan Courts Disagree On Seizure Of Vehicle, Question Of Whether Constitutional Rights Violated, Petitioner Asserted Fifth Amendment Rights Violated
Tina B. Bennis
State of Michigan
That she should be allowed to contest the confiscation of the car she jointly owned with her husband because she did not know her husband would use the car to violate Michigan's indecency law.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Stefan B. Herpel
Chief Lawyers for the Respondent
Larry L. Roberts, Richard H. Seamon
Justices for the Court
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sandra Day O'Connor, William H. Rehnquist (writing for the Court), Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas
Stephen Breyer, Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, John Paul Stevens
Date of Decision
4 March 1996
Upheld the state of Michigan's claim that the uncompensated taking of property used as a public nuisance, from an innocent owner, does not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
- Van Oster v. Kansas, 272 U.S. 465 (1926).
- United States v. Fuller, 409 U.S. 488 (1973).
- Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U.S. 663 (1974).
- Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71 (1992).
- Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602 (1993).
- Inc. v. Gore BMW of North America - Significance, Three "indicums Of Excessiveness", Punitive Damages Running Wild
- Baehr v. Miike - Same Sex Marriages, The Burden Of Proof Is On The State, Both Sides Marshal Their Experts
- Bennis v. Michigan - Further Readings
- Bennis v. Michigan - Significance
- Bennis v. Michigan - Michigan Courts Disagree On Seizure Of Vehicle
- Bennis v. Michigan - Question Of Whether Constitutional Rights Violated
- Bennis v. Michigan - Petitioner Asserted Fifth Amendment Rights Violated
- Bennis v. Michigan - A Close Decision
- Bennis v. Michigan - Impact
- Other Free Encyclopedias