Tina B. Bennis v. Michigan
516 U.S. 442 · Decided March 4, 1996 · Supreme Court of the United States
Record summary. This page is generated from the Supreme Court Database’s coded data about the case. It describes who decided what, not the Court’s reasoning. Read the opinion itself before relying on it. Not legal advice.
At a glance
Tina B. Bennis v. Michigan was decided on March 4, 1996 by a vote of 5–4. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote the opinion of the Court. SCDB classifies its main issue as “Due process, takings clause” in the Due Process area.
Read the opinion
Case details
- Citations
- 516 U.S. 442 · 116 S. Ct. 994 · 134 L. Ed. 2d 68 · 1996 U.S. LEXIS 1565
- Docket number
- 94-8729
- Decided
- March 4, 1996
- Argued
- November 29, 1995
- Court era
- Rehnquist Court
- Decision type
- Opinion of the Court (orally argued)
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome for petitioner
- The petitioning party did not receive a favorable disposition
- Vote
- 5–4
- Majority opinion
- William H. Rehnquist
- Opinion assigned by
- William H. Rehnquist
- How the case arrived
- Certiorari
- Issue (SCDB)
- Due process, takings clause
- Issue area
- Due Process
- Legal provision
- Fourteenth Amendment (due process)
- Type of law
- Constitutional amendment
- Decision direction (SCDB)
- Conservative what this means
How the Justices voted
| Justice | Vote | Separate writing |
|---|---|---|
| Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist | Majority | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice John Paul Stevens | Dissent | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Sandra Day O'Connor | Majority | |
| Justice Antonin Scalia | Majority | |
| Justice Anthony M. Kennedy | Dissent | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice David H. Souter | Dissent | |
| Justice Clarence Thomas | Concurrence | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg | Concurrence | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Stephen G. Breyer | Dissent |
Full case caption
Tina B. Bennis v. Michigan
SCDB identifiers: case 1995-031, docket 1995-031-01.
Related decisions
Other cases on “Due process, takings clause”
- Bruce Babbitt v. Marvin K. Youpee, Sr.Law held unconstitutional
- Bernadine Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
- Florence Dolan v. City of Tigard
- Thomas R. Phillips v. Washington Legal Foundation
- Eastern Enterprises v. Kenneth S. ApfelLaw held unconstitutional
- City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd.
Cases on the same legal provision: Fourteenth Amendment (due process)
- Byron Keith Cooper v. OklahomaLaw held unconstitutional
- BMW of North America, Inc. v. Ira Gore, Jr.
- Jason Richards v. Jefferson County
- Montana v. James Allen Egelhoff
- Cinda Sandin v. Demont R. D. Conner
- Charles J. Reich v. Marcus E. CollinsLaw held unconstitutional
Same Term, same area (Due Process)
- Byron Keith Cooper v. OklahomaLaw held unconstitutional
- Jason Richards v. Jefferson County
- Montana v. James Allen Egelhoff
- Samuel A. Lewis v. Fletcher Casey, Jr.Altered precedent
Source: Supreme Court Database, 2026 Release 01 (data file dated September 8, 2026). Imported into CaseTrail November 5, 2026. Coverage: decisions from the 1946 through 2025 Terms. Methodology · Report an error