Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
MORT 236: Case Law
| Case Name | Violation/Case Info | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| People v. Daniels (1945) | Section 2211 of the Penal Law for failing to cremate or bury four decedents despite having taken responsibility for them and taking payment from families | court rejected his request. full hearing took place in county court. After reviewing the case, the court ruled that Daniels' argument lacked merit. In the end, the court affirmed the dismissal of his writ, ruling against Daniels . |
| People v. Ackley (1946) | Charged with failing to properly bury or cremate bodies that he was responsible for. | court rejected his request, saying that he could present his arguments fully in a trial. In the end, the court upheld the charges, and Ackley didn't get the case thrown out. |
| Thomas v. Anderson (1950) | Deaths of John F. Thomas and Rhomus C. Sturgeon, who co-owned a property as joint tenants. Both men died on 9/2/1947 but no one knew who passed away first. | Court deemed "simultaneous" to be both events at the exact same time. Court found enough evidence to say that Thomas died before Sturgeon, which was important for deciding who would inherit the property they shared. |
| State v. Glass (1971) | Convicted of grave robbing and unlawfully removing monuments from a cemetery in Ohio and was found guilty. | Appeal - charged with grave robbing if the remains had decomposed so much that they didn't fit the legal definitions of "corpses" or "bodies" decision - didn't count as grave robbing but convicted due to taking gravestones without permission |
| Lovato v. District Court (1979) | Abuse and subsequent death of a child, and the court had to decide whether "death" meant the complete cessation of brain activity or just cessation of the heart and breathing | eventually the court decided to lean toward the latter to define death. |
| State v. Robinson (1979) | Shoots and kills a man and then puts the victim David Parker in his car, drives off and away and into a ditch then leaves. Charged with murder but isn't found guilty. | Convicted of abandoning a body |
| Brotherton v. Cleveland (1991) ** | Steven Brotherton gets his corneas taken without consent by the coroner. | She declined donation of his organs but the Hamilton County coroner's office still allowed the man's corneas to be removed and used for anatomical donation resulting in the lawsuit. |
| Tri-State (2003) | They were not cremating the bodies that came into their care, they were sending the families of those neglected loved ones things like cement instead of cremated remains. | Brent Marsh was charged with 787 felonies and in which he took a plea deal. a settlement of $36 million in damages for emotional suffering caused by the mishandling of remains and the breach of trust, duty and contract by was awarded to the families |
| National Archives v. Favish (2004) ** | Investigators took pictures of a crime scene with the body of a man in the photos. The family is suing because they claim it violates the privacy of their loved one | . The contingency of the case between public interest is more important than personal privacy. Funeral directors can be tied in because the photography of decedents without the express permission from the family can also lead to a lawsuit. Not only that b |
| Phelps-Roper v. Strickland (2008) | Shirley phelps-roper chose to challenge it saying that it is unconstitutional to regulate protests and she and her friends have the right to be loud and vocal and hateful at funerals for queer people or soldiers who died in war. | court agreed due to free speech. |
| Appendix A - Kanavan (1821) ** | They argued that digging up graves or treating bodies poorly is not just against the law but also deeply upsetting to the families left behind. The judges highlighted that proper funeral practices are a big part of how we honor those who have passed away. | Court confirmed the charges against the prisoner, stressing how important it is to respect the dead and their burial sites. |
| Appendix A - Wright v. Hollywood (1901) | This meant that people could pass their burial plots down through wills and inheritance laws, allowing them to leave these plots to their family members. | Supreme Court of Georgia, which ruled that a burial plot in a cemetery is considered real estate. The decision established that individuals have the legal right to bequeath their burial plots to their heirs |
| Evans v. Evans (1912) ** | Remains of Frank B. Evans, whose family is torn between having him cremated or buried. The argument against cremation was because it wasn't considered a christian burial, most vocally by his sister. His widow wanted a cremation however and since there was | The court eventually sided with his widow and let the body of Evans be cremated with an opportunity for those who opposed the decision to see him before he was to be cremated. |
| State v. Bradbury (1939) ** | Bradbury and his unmarried sister lived together, she had a fall and he decided the logical thing to do was to drag her into the basement furnace and cremate her. | regulations in place for a proper disposition of a body that is more dignified than a furnace in a basement. |
| Pierce v. Swan Point (1872) ** | The disinterment and attempt to shift the remains of Mr Metcalf from one cemetery to another. The most of the contention was between his widow who wanted the disinterment and Metcalf’s daughter, who didn’t. | Disinterment was originally allowed by the spouse and fine in terms of 7100 laws, it’s important to remember that permission is not enough and a court order also needs to be provided in order to protect the cemetery and the peace of mind of families |
| Rader v. Davis (1912) | A father (Radar) is denied entry to his young son's funeral because the father in law (Davis) held it in his own home | The courts decided he was forbidden because he did not pay his $2 monthly child support payment therefore he didn’t have the right to attend the funeral |
| Seaton v. Commonwealth (1912) | Dolph Seaton’s child passed, he failed to tell family or have a proper funeral, and elected to just bury the body in a wooden box on his own property. | There were no laws at the time against this, but Kentucky decided overall this was against local sensibilities |
| Haney v. Stamper (1939) | Haney’s brother passed and wanted the funeral date to be postponed until he could attend. That didn’t happen and his brother was buried without his attendance at the event. He sues this brother’s widow and her brother for damages | courts sided with Mrs. Frances-Haney, since she had the right to control the disposition at the time and place that she chose |
| Dumouchelle v. Duke (1984) | NOK wanted Mrs Post cremated but her grandson (executor of her will) wanted her to be buried in Ohio. Duke followed instruction, sent the body to Ohio and NOK (plaintiffs) attempted to sue for negligence and breach of contract. | They didn’t win however since Mrs Post had her wishes and desires in writing and that superseded the desires of the next of kin. |
| Ross v. Forest Lawn Memorial Park (1984) | Kristie Ross passes and her mother arranges the service at Forest Lawn but expresses that none of her “punk rocker” friends were to attend. They did attend and were rowdy and behaving disruptively and eventually police were called to the event. | Ross’ mother sued on the basis of negligence and breach of contract against Forest Lawn. |
| Pettigrew v. Pettigrew (1904) | Mr Pettigrew passed and was buried in a family lot, but following the death of the widow’s daughter, she wished to have him disinterred and moved to the cemetery where her daughter would be buried despite opposing feelings from Pettigrew’s family. | The widow has full authority and right to disposition of her husband’s body and can make the decision to disinter and move his burial location as was affirmed by the court. |
| Mack v. Brown (2011) ** | Mr Mack passes and someone who claimed to be his surviving spouse appeared and scheduled for him to be cremated. And he was. Only for a second woman, Shirley Mack, to come forward and claim the previous woman and her marriage to Mr Mack was invalid. | Cemeteries and funeral homes act on good faith, meaning they do not act suspiciously of the business that comes to their door, furthermore they are not held liable when information is withheld and not privy to them. |
| Appendix B - Wood vs. Butterworth (1911) | Mr Wood passes, his widow and two sons cannot agree on where to bury their loved one so they went to court. Prior to death Mr Chauncey had expressed the desire to be buried in South Dakota, not Seattle where the widow wanted. | The decedent’s rights to control their own disposition is higher than a surviving spouse. Since Mr Wood had quite the legacy attached to South Dakota. The courts recognized this significance and settled the burial dispute. |
| Appendix B - Sacred Heart v. Sokolwski (1924) | Mr Soklowski is buried in Sacred Heart of Jesus Polish National Catholic Church, but his widow wished to disinter his remains and bury them at St. Mary’s Cemetery. The cemetery tried to oppose this from happening, | The courts ruled that the cemetery had no claim over the man’s disposition |
| Appendix B - Holland v. Metalious (1964) | Metalious passes and wishes for her body to be donated to science with no funeral service. However, the Dartmouth Medical School she chose declined to accept her body. | Her initial wishes had been denied so the family was then granted permission to have a brief and simple funeral service. |
| Palenzke v. Bruning (1900) | Family challenged coroner’s and undertaker’s rights to allow for an autopsy to be performed on their son’s body who was a minor without consent | The appellate court ended up siding with the family because as they have the duty to investigate cases that they deem suspicious, they need to follow the proper protocols that don’t trample over the rights of the decedent’s family |
| Meyers v. Clarke (1906) | A mother sues the doctors and hospital for mutilation and disfigurement of her daughter's body by unauthorized autopsy. The doctor reasoned that they assumed she would be okay with it | Court decided to rule with the hospital since they conducted the autopsy properly and in good faith in order to secure both a burial permit and the death certificate. |
| Konecny v. Hohenschuh (1919) | A woman dies at a hospital, which arranged for her body to be taken by an undertaker to have an autopsy performed. The son did not want this at all and not only interrupted the autopsy but demanded the body of his mother but took it without delay. | Because the undertaker did not participate in the autopsy and was acting under the hospital’s direction, he was not liable and had no duty to verify that consent for the autopsy. |
| Fitzsimmons v. Olinger (1932) ** | The wife of the deceased sues the funeral home because she opted for private services but the funeral home took unauthorized pictures, published them for an ad and even released their names. | |
| Sack v. Nunn (1934) | funeral home is taken to court after their funeral transportation car hit another vehicle. However the funeral home tried to argue that since the car and the person driving it were hired through a third party, they were not liable for damages | courts decided that since the funeral home contracted with the third party transport service and used them during the funeral procession that they were conducting that the third party company was then considered an employee of the funeral home |
| Gurganious v. Simpson (1938) | The father argued that the autopsy was not necessary just to confirm the cause of death, especially in this case of his son who drowned in a public pool, without any suspicion of foul play attached. | funeral home was not found liable but the coroner and the physicians involved were. court ruled that the performance of that unauthorized autopsy violated the family’s rights |
| Pantell v. Shriver-Allison Co. (1938) | funeral home that allowed two privately-owned vehicles that were driven by mourners into a funeral procession. Another accident occurred and the funeral home was sued for damages. | court sided with the funeral home deciding that since the drivers were volunteers, they were not in any kind of contract with the funeral home, nor were they being compensated for the work they were doing. |
| Sworski v. Simons (1940)** | A coroner and funeral home are taken to court following the suicide of Clifford Sworski while in jail. The body is sent to be embalmed without an authorization and the funeral home does it anyway | Violates the rights of the family and will likely be found liable for the suffering of the plaintiffs. funeral home cannot keep a family from seeing their loved one behind a paywall or making them sign paperwork in order to do it. |
| Lamm v. Shingleton (1949)** | funeral home is being sued for claims of a breach of contract after a woman’s husband’s vault is not sealed properly, allowing for natural elements like water and the soil and dirt from around the space to leak in. | she claims that the vault was ensured to be water-tight by the funeral home however because she could not provide any proof of this faulty promise she lost her appeal. |
| Watts v Rhodes (1950) | Watts sues a funeral home when he falls on an icy ramp outside the facility while attending the funeral of his father. The ice had melted and the funeral home had either not noticed or not addressed the safety concern. | Watts won his case and the funeral home was determined to be liable for his injury and damages due to their negligence. |
| Shipman v. Norton (1957) | injury is sustained to a guest of a funeral home after falling from step that is 3.5 inches in height. | court ended up siding with Shipman because the step was not accurately marked as a step and determined that the color matched that of the porch making it difficult to see. |
| Carey v. Lima, Salmon & Tully (1959) | A man’s father is embalmed and shipped from California to Oklahoma, but upon arriving in Oklahoma, Carey claims the condition of his father was decaying already and smelled bad. | Carey claims that is due to negligence on the part of the funeral home and the original decision of the court prior to the appeal was reversed. |
| Filipiak v. Plombon (1962) | Filipiak falls on the slippery private sidewalk of a funeral home that leads to injury. | The court ended up siding with Filipiak and determined that since the sidewalks are owned privately by the funeral home, they are then considered liable for failure to maintain it |
| Frederick v. Hixson (1964) | Frederick is suing Hixson for injuries he slipped and fell on concrete slabs that were not covered appropriately, having only been marked by imitation grass. | The court sided with Frederick and found that Hixson’s funeral home did not mark the hazard for guests in a way that would have protected them from liability. |
| Cottom v. McGuire (1970) | The handle of a casket breaks, and Cottom not only is injured but the casket falls, they sue Mcguire for negligence and breach of implied warranty. | Courts sided with Cottom and found that the casket is a product that is used during a funeral service, therefore Cottom as an intended user of the casket handle. |
| Clark v. Smith (1973) | A funeral director is sued for damages and accused of mishandling a body because the decedent was severely decomposed. The funeral home did not keep the decedent at the appropriate temperature or use embalming fluid | The courts sided with the family and found the funeral home was negligent in the care of Annie Smith and therefore liable for the emotional damages that the family was seeking. |
| Meyer v. Nottger (1976) | Meyer sues a funeral director for emotional distress and breach of contract claiming that the funeral director was not honest about the condition of the deceased and rushed the funeral without allowing Meyer to participate. | state of Iowa did not allow for emotional damages from a breach of contract but Meyer was still allowed the opportunity to present his claims of emotional distress. |
| Morgan v. Richmond (1976) ** | family sues a funeral home for claims of wrongfully withholding the body of their deceased loved one and demanding payment before the body could be released to them. | A funeral director cannot withhold the remains of a decedent in any way as the family has rights to them as quasi property |
| Corrigal v. Ball and Dodd** | A woman had her son cremated and purchased an urn for him but upon receiving, she didn't get what she ordered and her son was in a cardboard box and plastic bag | funeral home was sued |
| Golston v. Lincoln (1978)** | funeral home is found negligent in burial causing emotional pain for family. jury awarded damages to her sister and her nephews. court upheld the jury's decision, recognizing Mrs. Martin's right to seek damages as a family member involved in the burial. | |
| Harper v. Orlando (1979)** | defective casket falls apart during a burial. | family sued for emotional distress and initially the court found that no physical injury to the family was sustained but at least allowed for some of the claims to move forward, allowing for the casket to be compensated. |
| Kennedy v. Ricker (1979) | A casket with no handles and no instructions leads to a family suing after they attempted to carry it, found that it was heavy and difficult to manage and Kennedy lost his grip and hurt himself. | court found that the funeral home was liable for damages because they failed to instruct the family on how to properly handle the non-traditional casket. |
| Allen v. Jones (1980)** | A funeral home lost the cremated remains of a decedent in transit through mail and the family ended up receiving an empty container. | |
| Scheuer v. Wille (1980)** | a Jewish mother is embalmed which is a big bad thing, because it desecrated the Jewish beliefs that follow after death. Not only did the funeral home not clock the religious affiliation but it failed to even ask for consent from the family. | |
| Draper v. Superior Court (1982)** | sexual assault was performed on the remains of a woman following the negligent handling of her body on the part of the funeral home. They had failed to secure the chapel and lock the door thus allowing for someone to come in and have access to her. | |
| Thompson v. Duncan Bros. (1982) | body of Thompson’s son is shipped from New York to Georgia and arrives in a condition that is poor and decomposed, with claims that it was even leaking fluids. | court decided that the funeral home that sent Thompson’s son was liable for emotional damages and had failed to properly embalm the body. |
| Sherer v. Rubin (1984) | Sherer sues a funeral home for holding a service with the wrong remains. Their clothes were draped over a completely different person | |
| Levite v. Griggs (1986) | funeral home decides it can withhold the remains of a family’s loved one until they pay for funeral services. original funeral home refused to release the body until a payment was received first. | The family or the courts did not side with this transgression |
| McDaniel v. Bass-Smith (1986)** | Casket did not close properly, with a small gap being able to be seen at the service, making the deceased loved one visible through it. There were attempts to close it by staff but they were rough and disrespectful of the event and space. | This case highlights the importance of funeral directors providing services in a professional and sensitive manner, as breaches can result in emotional distress claims. |
| Wilson v. Ferguson (1988)** | A family sues after finding that the grave they were going to use was improperly prepared. Furthermore there was no shelter in place at the gravesite for the rain that day. The funeral home ended up damaging the casket and the grave liner at the gravesite | The case highlights again the responsibilities of funeral directors to ensure proper care and preparation during funeral services and reiterates what this whole document has been bringing up: the need for sensitivity in dealing with grieving families. |
| Nally v. Grace (1988)** | A family sues a community court for wrongful death because they were negligent and failed to prevent their son from committing suicide. | focuses on the need to recognize when clients may be struggling with mental health and the concept of legal duty and liability for those who counsel |
| Holsen v. Heritage (1991) | The children of Holsen Sr. sued a funeral home after they found their father's body in the wrong casket. This mistake was discovered just minutes before the public visitation. | court decided that the funeral home had a duty to respect the family's right to bury their loved one properly and allowed the case to move forward because of the emotional pain caused by the error. |
| Audia v. Rossi (2000)** | Beshara found another woman in his wife's casket during her funeral viewing! This mistake caused distress for him and his daughter who sued the funeral home for emotional distress. | The funeral home acknowledged its negligence but argued that the family didn’t prove they suffered enough emotional harm. |
| Brown v. Simpson (2002)** | The Brown family took legal action against a funeral home after they were disturbed by the condition of their premature son, Jelani, during a private viewing. They claimed that the mortuary broke their agreement and misrepresented the embalming process. | |
| Smith v. Smith (1976) | A widow is left with the estate in which she planned distribution, this is challenged by the daughter from a former marriage. She claimed that certain expenses were excessive, like the (approx) $5,000 funeral. | court found the expenses were fine because they were well within local price standards and because they were fairly proportional to the estate. |
| Davis-Turner v. Chaney (1991) | Charles Chaney signs a contract with a funeral home for his deceased father. He could not cover a majority of the bill and asked the court to instead make his stepmother (and rightful widow of the estate) responsible for the remainder of money. | court determined that Charles was legally responsible because he signed the contract but he was entitled to a reimbursement from his stepmother because Ohio law says the surviving spouse inherits that funeral cost. |
| State v. McLean (1897) | local officials move a body from a grave without the consent of the family. The burial lot they were originally placed in had not been paid off so they thought their actions were justified. | They violated the rights of the family who had the rightful and only authority to make a call on moving their loved one and the court charged them with a felony for desecrating a grave without permission or legal process. |
| Guerin v. Cassidy (1955) | Gallagher asked for her grave to be cared for at Holy Cross Cemetery but she was buried at a different, non-sectarian cemetery. The executor of the estate sued to try and get her disinterred and buried in the location she originally wanted | the court decided that no reburial was needed because the burial followed church rules, meaning the ground was consecrated with a catholic blessing during her burial so technically here burial did not violate any religious laws. |
| Coleman (1956) | A woman’s sister is being considered for exhumation in order for a second autopsy to be performed on her body. The initial autopsy concluded that there was no foul play despite the sister’s claims, thus they went to court. | court sustained that there was no legal or justifiable reason to exhume the corpse so the request was denied. |
| Tamarkin v. Children (1965) | Orthodox jewish cemetery refused to allow two families to move their loved ones elsewhere because their rules did not allow for disinterments due to religious beliefs. | family took the cemetery to court where it was decided that the cemetery could not prevent the family from exercising their rights over the body despite their religious rules. |
| Mallen v. Mallen (1975) | A wife wants to move her deceased husband from the place he is buried but the parents of the deceased are opposed. They cite their religious beliefs and control over the plot he is buried in | widow to take them to court where it was decided that the surviving spouse does have more weight than that of the parents. |
| Linser v. Booth (1922) | Home owners were against a funeral business operating in a neighborhood near schools claiming it was a nuisance and would be down the value and make others uncomfortable | courts did not agree, there was no sign or evidence that the business was negligent or improper and violating any zoning laws. |
| Higgins v. Bloch (1925) | Residents of the neighborhood stated the presence of the funeral home would depreciate the value of the homes, make the neighborhood uncomfortable and would ultimately be a constant reminder of death in the area. | Courts decided it was enough reason to be considered a nuisance even though the funeral home was lawful and proper in terms of business but an injunction was ordered on the business |
| Labash v. Board of Embalmers & Funeral Directors (1951) | Labash wanted to open a branch funeral home but the his application was denied stating there was a rule that each branch had to have a licensed manager who couldn't be managing any other places. | court agreed, saying the rule didn’t make sense or help keep people safe, and they told the Board to let Labash open the branch |
| Golubski v. Board of Embalmers (1961)** | The chairman of the board interrupted witnesses and limited their ability to speak, which violated their rights. The board also failed to set a clear effective date for the new rules and didn't provide a complete or verified record of the hearing. | court ruled that the board didn't have the power to ban food and alcohol at funeral homes because that falls under the Department of Health. |
| Brandt v. Commonwealth (1983) | funeral home attempts to get a license but is denied by the local Board of Funeral Directors citing that under state law, business corporations weren’t allowed to hold branch licenses. | courts ended up backing the Board’s decisions, stating that only individual funeral directors or partnerships were allowed to open branches. |
| Potter v. Bryan (1991) | Neighbors contested against a funeral home calling it a nuisance | the courts decided because it was a mixed residential area (residence and business) that the funeral home could stay and operate. |
| Brown v. Hovatter (2009) | A group of funeral industry people challenged Marylan’s law which prevents corporations from owning funeral homes, and requires them to be licensed. They argued that they law limited competition and increased prices | court agreed that the law didn’t violate fairness or due process, but it did violate the Commerce Clause by unfairly blocking out-of-state businesses from entering the Maryland funeral market. |
Created by:
Nocestudent
Popular Miscellaneous sets