Svoboda | Graniru | BBC Russia | Golosameriki | Facebook

To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

Bennis v. Michigan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bennis v. Michigan
Argued November 29, 1995
Decided March 4, 1996
Full case nameTina B. Bennis v. Michigan
Citations516 U.S. 442 (more)
116 S. Ct. 994; 134 L. Ed. 2d 68
Case history
PriorMich ex rel. Prosecutor v. Bennis, 447 Mich. 719, 527 N.W.2d 483 (1994)
Holding
The forfeiture order did not offend the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy
David Souter · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer
Case opinions
MajorityRehnquist, joined by O'Connor, Scalia, Thomas, Ginsburg
ConcurrenceThomas
ConcurrenceGinsburg
DissentStevens, joined by Souter, Breyer
DissentKennedy

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.

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/3
    Views:
    2 896
    427
    11 533
  • Noel Tichy on "Judgement"
  • Gagnon v. Scarpelli Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained
  • How To Start a Disinfection Business with Chip Bennis and AJ Simmons

Transcription

Background

Tina B. Bennis was a joint owner, with her husband, of an automobile. Detroit police arrested her husband, John Bennis, after observing him engaged in a sexual act with a prostitute in the automobile while it was parked on a Detroit city street. 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.[citation needed]

See also

Sources

  • Beatty, M. E. (1996). "Bennis v. Michigan: The Supreme Court Clings to Precedent and Denies Innocent Owners a Defense to Forfeiture". Mercer Law Review. 48: 1265. ISSN 0025-987X.
  • Ingram, R. T. (1996). "The Crime of Property: Bennis v. Michigan and the Excessive Fines Clause". Denver University Law Review. 74: 293. ISSN 0883-9409.
  • Levy, Robert A.; Mellor, William H. (2008). "Asset Forfeiture Without Due Process". The Dirty Dozen: How Twelve Supreme Court Cases Radically Expanded Government and Eroded Freedom. New York: Sentinel. pp. 143–154. ISBN 978-1-59523-050-8.

External links

Text of Bennis v. Michigan, 516 U.S. 442 (1996) is available from: Cornell  Findlaw  Google Scholar  Justia  Library of Congress  Oyez (oral argument audio) 

This page was last edited on 13 September 2023, at 01:49
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.