Instead of attempting to use Atlas as your personal Google, why don't you just read
the concurrence that she wrote separately to expand on her reasons for joining the majority?
She said it was uncontested by the dissent that Michigan had the right to seize the car. The question was whether Tina Bennis should be compensated for her share of it. She argued that the Michigan Supreme Court took full consideration of whether the seizure was excessive & that the trial judge involved in the original seizure also took compensation into account but concluded that, because the car was only worth $600, there wouldn't be enough left to compensate Bennis for her share after subtracting sale costs. Therefore, she concluded that Michigan was fully within the law & applied the law in a reasonable fashion: that the case didn't warrant Michigan being rebuked by SCOTUS.
