687 F.3d at 295 (“[A] next of kin does not have a property interest in a decedent’s brain that was removed and retained pursuant to a lawful investigation.”), with Newman v. Sathyavaglswaran, 287 F.3d 786, 796-97 (9th Cir.2002) (“[W]e hold that the parents had property interests in the corneas of their deceased children protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”). And California courts have concluded: “ ‘there is no property in a dead body1 in California.” Perryman v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 153 Cal.App.4th 1189, 63 Cal.Rptr.3d 732 (2007), review granted and opinion superseded on other grounds by 68 Cal.Rptr.3d 274, 171 P.3d 2 (2007) (citing Enos v. Snyder, 131 Cal. 68, 69, 63 P. 170 (1900); Gray v. S. Pac. Co., 21 Cal.App.2d 240, 246, 68 P.2d 1011 (1937)) (<HOLDING>). As more than one scholar has observed,
holding that executor owed no legal duty under negligence theory to decedents sons who claimed bank accounts upon her death under a right of survivorship but were not beneficiaries of any of decedents property under her will holding that evidence that decedents second wife secretly decided to disinter decedents remains rather than maintain a grave with a headstone pursuant to an agreement with family members sufficiently established that wifes actions were deliberate and extreme and outrageous for purposes of establishing an iied claim holding decedents remains are not property and the coroner and the coroners employees have no mandatory statutory duty or common law duty to treat human remains as if they were operating a mortuary or crematory holding that the employer remains liable with respect to the duty regardless of the acts or omissions of the person entrusted to perform it holding where there is no duty to defend there is no duty to indemnify