Bennis v.

Michigan
Facts: Tina Bennis (Petitioner) jointly owned a vehicle with her husband. The police
arrested the husband after an indecent sexual activity with a prostitute inside the car. An
indecency law states that the government can seek forfeiture of a property that is public
nuisance.
The petitioners defense was that she was innocent and had no knowledge of her
husbands indecent scheme; thus, the taking of the car violates her rights as provided in
the 14th amendment.
It was held and ruled in this case, that such defense does not suffice. The forfeiture of
the vehicle did not violate the property rights or the substantive due process. It was
enough that the vehicle was used for a criminal activity. Thus, Michigan is not required
to compensate Bennis for the vehicles forfeiture.

Cruzan v. Director
Facts: Nancy Cruzan was in a coma, specifically, in a persistent vegetative state due to
an accident. She has long been under artificial life support. Thus, her family members
requested that she be withdrawn of such, alleging she has a liberty interest in
withdrawal of treatment.
Missouri State, however, declined as there is no clear and convincing evidence that
Nancy refused medical treatment under the Due Process Law. She was deemed
incompetent to decide for herself.
The issue is whether or not the government deprived Cruzan of her liberty to decline
from medical treatment.
The Court held that while individuals enjoyed the right to refuse medical treatment under
the Due Process Clause, incompetent persons were not able to exercise such rights.
Absent such proof of clear and convincing evidence, the State of Missouris action is
intended to preserve human life; and, thus, it is constitutional. The Court upheld the
states heightened evidentiary requirements.