United States Sixth Circuit

In plaintiffs' 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit against a coroner and others claiming that they were denied due process of law when defendant-coroner performed an autopsy on their son's remains and removed the brain during the procedure and returned the body to the plaintiffs, without informing them that the coroner had retained the brain for further study, judgment on the pleadings in favor of the defendants is affirmed where: 1) the district court appropriately deferred to the Ohio Supreme Court's interpretation of Ohio law in finding that the plaintiffs did not have a property interest in the son's body parts the coroner retained for investigative purposes; and 2) Albrecht II did not change Ohio law, and as such, plaintiffs had no property rights on which the state could infringe.

Appellate Information

• Argued 08/06/2010
• Decided 08/24/2010
• Published 08/24/2010

Judges

• HOOD, Senior District Judge

Court

• United States Sixth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• John Henry Metz, H. Elizabeth Mason