65 F. Supp. 2d 701 - Culberson v. Doan’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2403 · 42 U.S.C. § 13981 (§ 40302 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · City of Canton v. Harris · United States v. Lopez · West v. Atkins
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In this case, we first find that Plaintiffs, being Carrie’s next of kin, have a protected property interest in the remains of Carrie’s body under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Brotherton v. Cleveland, 923 F.2d 477, 481 (6th Cir.1991 ) (recognizing that ‘the human body is a valuable resource’ and that, ‘The importance of establishing rights in a dead body has been, and will continue to be, magnified by scientific advancements.’); see also Whaley v. County of Tuscola, 58 F.3d 1111, 1114 (6th Cir.1995) (acknowledging the Broth-erton court’s holding that, “the aggregate of rights granted by the state of Ohio to [the next of kin] rises to the level of a ‘legitimate claim of entitlement’ in the [deceased person’s] body, ... protected by the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment,” as the law of the Circuit).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.