In re Jobes
New Jersey Supreme Court
529 A.2d 434 (1987)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
When she was in her 20s, Nancy Jobes (defendant) made statements to friends and family that she would not want to live with severe disabilities or while in a vegetative state. In some of these statements, Jobes referenced a woman, Karen Quinlan, who had been in the news because of her persistent vegetative state. After hearing a story about someone else’s unfortunate situation, Jobes also told a relative that she would not want to be kept alive by medical machinery after a car accident. Jobes even asked the relative for a card that would express this wish, and the relative sent her one. Several years after most of these statements, Jobes was in a car accident while pregnant. The fetus died in the accident, and Jobes suffered severe brain damage during the operation to remove the fetus. Jobes remained alive, but she was not conscious and needed to be sustained through a feeding tube that went directly to her lower intestine. No one was able to find the card the relative had sent to Jobes years earlier. Jobes’s husband (plaintiff) and parents believed Jobes would not want to live, and her husband sued for the right to have the feeding tube taken out. The trial court ruled that the family could decide to remove the tube. The case was appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Garibaldi, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 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.
