Suvarna Garge (Editor)

Bennis v. Michigan

Updated on
Share on FacebookTweet on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Reddit
Dissent  Kennedy
End date  1996
Bennis v. Michigan wwwkessleronforfeiturecomwpcontentuploads201
Full case name  Tina B. Bennis v. Michigan
Citations  516 U.S. 442 (more) 116 S. Ct. 994
Prior history  Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Michigan
Majority  Rehnquist, joined by O'Connor, Scalia, Thomas, Ginsburg
Dissent  Stevens, joined by Souter, Breyer
Similar  United States v Bajakajian, Tahoe‑Sierra Preservation Council - I, Lucas v South Carolina, BMW of North America - I, Penn Central Transport

Bennis v. Michigan, 516 U.S. 442 (1996), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that the innocent owner defense is not constitutionally mandated by Fourteenth Amendment Due Process in cases of civil forfeiture.

Tina B. Bennis was a joint owner, with her husband, of an automobile in which her husband engaged in sexual activity with a prostitute. In declaring the automobile forfeit as a public nuisance under Michigan's statutory abatement scheme, the trial court permitted no offset for petitioner's interest despite her lack of knowledge of her husband's activity. The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed but was, in turn, reversed by the Michigan Supreme Court, which concluded, among other things, that Michigan's failure to provide an innocent-owner defense was without federal constitutional consequence under this Court's decisions.


Bennis v. Michigan Wikipedia

Similar Topics
American History X
Gustavo Semino
Jamey Grosser