Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 18,400+ case briefs...

Conservatorship of Wendland

Supreme Court of California
26 Cal. 4th 519, 28 P.3d 151 (2001)


After Robert Wendland rolled his truck in a single-car accident, he became severely physically and mentally disabled and was reliant on artificial hydration and nutrition. Physicians informed Robert’s wife Rose that his condition would not change. Rose, Robert’s wife, and their children visited Robert and directed that treatment be provided to him when needed. After two years of treatment, Rose wished to terminate Robert’s treatment. Several of Robert’s treating physicians supported Rose’s decision, but the feeding tube was re-inserted pending input from the hospital’s ethics committee. After a hearing on the issue, the 20-member ethics committee approved Rose’s decision. Robert’s mother and sister filed for a temporary restraining order to prevent the removal. A trial court granted the request ex parte. Rose petitioned to be appointed Robert’s conservator with authority to make medical treatment decisions on his behalf. The court appointed Rose as conservator but reserved judgment on her request for authority to remove Robert’s feeding tube pending further information. After 60 days without any change in Robert’s condition, Rose renewed her request to have his feeding tube removed. Robert’s mother and sister asked the court to appoint an independent attorney representative for Robert. At a hearing to determine whether removal of the feeding tube was appropriate, Rose introduced Robert’s pre-accident statements regarding life-sustaining treatment. Robert said at varying times that he would not want to live in a vegetative state or a state where he could not enjoy the outdoors and do things he normally could do. The trial court denied Rose’s request. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the trial court was required to defer to the conservator’s good faith decision. Robert’s mother and sister appealed.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Moore, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 497,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 497,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 18,400 briefs, keyed to 985 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial