Waeschle v. Dragovic’s Empirical Analysis
576 F.3d 539 · 2009
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Anderson v. Creighton · Pearson v. Callahan
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Assuming that a decedent’s brain was removed by a medical examiner to con duct a lawful investigation into the decedent’s cause of death, the decedent’s next of kin does not have a right under Michigan law to possess the brain in order to properly bury or cremate the same after the brain is no longer needed for forensic examination.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“differences in facts likely to [sic] do not take [that] case outside the broad holding in Brotherton that there is a substantial and protectable constitutional interest in the dead body of a relative or loved one. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs do have a cognizable constitutional property interest in their decedent’s body parts which the coroner’s office violated when it disposed of their decedents’ brains without prior notice. ... Brotherton very broadly and very clearly held that family members have a property interest in them decedent’s body parts which is protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Albrecht v. Treon“Brotherton and Whaley, however, are distinguishable from the present case. The key difference is that the brain of Waeschle’s mother was removed and retained for study by the Medical Examiner in furtherance of a lawful criminal investigation. By contrast, the removal of corneas in Brotherton and Whaley served no investigative function whatsoever. The distinction is important because Waeschle might have no right under Michigan law to possess, control, or dispose of her mother’s brain once it is removed for legitimate forensic study.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Albrecht v. Treon
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.