(DOWNLOAD) "Exhumation Body D.M. Missouri Division" by Southern District, Division Two Court of Appeals of Missouri " eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Exhumation Body D.M. Missouri Division
- Author : Southern District, Division Two Court of Appeals of Missouri
- Release Date : January 06, 1991
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 65 KB
Description
This is an appeal of an order dismissing a petition filed on behalf of the Missouri Department of Social Services (the department). The petition sought an order to exhume and autopsy the body of D.M. Respondent (the mother of the deceased) filed a motion to dismiss the petition alleging that the department lacked legal standing to bring the action for exhumation and autopsy. The trial court sustained respondent's motion. This court affirms. Litteral v. Litteral, 131 Mo. App.306, 111 S.W. 872, 873 (1908), declared that the dead were left with the rights ""(if we may call them rights)"" of ""decent sepulture"" and ""the right to be suffered to rest undisturbed until the body shall have been resolved into its original elements."" It added that ""the duty rests on all, including the courts, not to disturb the body, except in cases of necessity or for some cogent reason which appeals strongly to human nature or to one's sense of propriety."" This declaration amounts to public policy in that public policy of a state is ""found in the 'Constitution, statutes, or judicial decisions of the state or nation."" Schulte v. Missionaries of La Salette Corp. of Mo., 352 S.W.2d 636, 638 (Mo. 1961), quoting In re Rahn's Estate, 316 Mo. 492, 291 S.W. 120, 123 (1926), cert. denied, 274 U.S. 745 (1927). ""But statutes are the very highest evidence of public policy and binding on the courts."" Brawner v. Brawner, 327 S.W.2d 808, 812 (Mo. banc 1959). The department contends that §§ 210.145 and .150 1 provide authority for it to secure the exhumation and autopsy of the body -- that those statutes afford it legal standing for the relief it sought in the trial court. If §§ 210.145 and .150 may be interpreted in the manner urged by the department, those statutes would amount to a declaration of public policy that the need for the department to cause an autopsy to be performed, under the facts of this case, constitutes cogent reasons for disinterment.