fails to establish an unequivocal post-autopsy right to specimens taken for the purpose of a lawful criminal investigation. One of the cases from the Michigan Supreme Court cited by Waeschle recognizes a cause of action for the unlawful and intentional mutilation of dead bodies. Deeg v. City of Detroit, 345 Mich. 371, 76 N.W.2d 16, 19 (Mich.1956) (“It seems to be settled by the great weight of authority that the unlawful and intentional mutilation of a dead body gives rise to a cause of action on behalf of the person or persons entitled to the possession, control, and burial of such body”)- Another recognizes the next of kin’s right to control a relative’s body for the limited purpose of securing a burial. Doxtator v. Chicago & W.M. Ry. Co., 120 Mich. 596, 79 N.W. 922, 922 (Mich.1899) (<HOLDING>). But these cases, as well as others cited by
holding that action of city legislative body may be judicially examined in light of its surrounding circumstances prior and subsequent actions of such legislative body and public policy in order to determine good faith of questioned action holding that the hip is part of the body as opposed to part of the leg and where the effects of the loss of a member extend to other parts of the body and interfere with their efficiency the scheduled allowance for the lost member is not exclusive recognizing that although there was no property in a dead body at common law  the one whose duty it is to care for the body of the deceased is entitled to possession of the body as it is when death comes and that it is an actionable wrong for another to interfere with that right by withholding the body or mutilating it in any way holding that it is not holding that the degree of the loss of use of a body part is a question of fact whether the loss is for all practical intents and purposes is a question of law