In re Guardianship of Tschumy
Minnesota Supreme Court
853 N.W.2d 728 (2014)
- Written by Deanna Curl, JD
Facts
In April 2012, Abbott Northwestern Hospital (plaintiff) filed a motion in the district court requesting court authorization for Joseph Vogel (defendant), the guardian of Jeffers Tschumy, to request the removal of Tschumy’s life support. Vogel opposed the motion, arguing that court approval was not required for a guardian to request the removal of a ward’s life-support systems. In May 2012, the district court held that a guardian is not authorized to direct the removal of a ward’s life-support systems without prior court approval but authorized Vogel and the hospital to withdraw life support for Tschumy. Following the order, Tschumy’s life-support systems were withdrawn, Tschumy died, and the court later discharged Vogel as guardian. On October 18, 2012, the district court issued an order detailing why Minnesota law did not authorize a guardian to direct the removal of a ward’s life support without prior court approval. Vogel appealed the district court’s October 2012 order. The appellate court retained jurisdiction, finding that the case was not moot because the case presented a question of public importance and statewide concern capable of repetition yet evaded review. On appeal, the supreme court addressed the court’s jurisdiction over the case sua sponte.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Gildea, C.J.)
Dissent (Stras, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.
