Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,795
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 46:
Line 46: − + + + + + + + +
much improved re: law
== Law Concerning Cremation ==
== Law Concerning Cremation ==
The [[common law]] generally honored statements in wills, or in writing other than in wills, or orally, by a living person concerning the post-mortem burial or cremation of his own body.<ref>See 7 A.L.R. 3d 747, 749-50 (1966); 54 A.L.R. 3d 1037 (1973).</ref>
The [[common law]] generally honored statements in [[will]]s, or in writing other than in [[will]]s, or orally, by a living person concerning the post-mortem burial or cremation of his own body.<ref>See 7 A.L.R. 3d 747, 749-50 (1966); 54 A.L.R. 3d 1037 (1973).</ref>
Some persons have attempted to exert control over the disposition of their body after death, to the point of even successfully suing the state to allow non-traditional approaches.<ref>''Alcor Life Extension Found. v. Mitchell'', 9 Cal. Rptr. 2d 572 (1992) (allowing post-mortem cryonic suspension with a firm not recognized by the State of [[California]]).</ref>
Some persons have attempted to exert control over the disposition of their body after death, to the point of even successfully suing the state to allow non-traditional approaches.<ref>''Alcor Life Extension Found. v. Mitchell'', 9 Cal. Rptr. 2d 572 (1992) (allowing post-mortem cryonic suspension with a firm not recognized by the State of [[California]]).</ref>
Courts in some jurisdictions have held that because a corpse is not "property," a [[will]] is not the place for a decedent to control the disposition of his body.<ref>''Enos v. Snyder'', 63 P. 170, 171 (Cal. 1900) ("It is quite well established ... that, in the absence of statutory provisions, there is no property in a dead body; that it is not part of the estate of the deceased person; and that a man cannot by will dispose of that which after his death will be his corpse.").</ref> Even in the states that authorize a person to specify in his [[will]] how his body should be treated after death, the [[will]] may never be reviewed until it is too late. Sometimes, as in the case of [[Ted Williams]], the statement in the [[will]] is overruled by contrary intentions of the next of kin as supported by less compelling evidence.<ref>''Cohen v. Guardianship of Cohen'', 896 So. 2d 950, 953 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005) (citing ''Kirksey v. Jernigan'', 45 So. 2d 188, 189 (Fla. 1950)), ''rev. denied'', 911 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 2005) (holding that the decedent's wishes as explained in his [[will]] were not conclusive, and that testimony from the decedent's family as to his desire was allowed to overrule it).</ref>
== References ==
== References ==
<references/>
<references/>
== Sources ==
* Tracie M. Kester, NOTE: UNIFORM ACTS - Can the Dead Hand Control the Dead Body? The Case for a Uniform Bodily Remains Law, 29 W. New Eng. L. Rev. 571 (2007).
[[category:religion]]
[[category:religion]]
[[category:burial]]