In re Martin
Michigan Supreme Court
450 Mich. 204, 538 N.W.2d 399 (1995)
- Written by Solveig Singleton, JD
Facts
Mary Martin (plaintiff) and Michael Martin were married. In 1987, Michael suffered a serious injury to his brain in a car accident. After the accident, Michael had the ability to answer yes or no to simple questions by moving his head. Michael could recognize faces but appeared unable to understand complex questions and had lost the ability to walk, talk, and eat. Michael was sometimes unresponsive, but experts agreed that he was not in a persistent vegetative state or terminally ill. When asked if he wished to end his life, Michael answered no. Michael’s life was sustained by a gastronomy tube. As Michael’s guardian, Mary petitioned for the removal of the tube. Mary reported that before his injuries, Michael had said that he would not want his life to be artificially sustained if he could not eat, walk, or talk or if he depended on machines for his needs. The trial court held that Mary had demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Michael had expressed a desire to decline life-sustaining medical treatment. The court of appeals found that the trial court’s findings were not clearly erroneous.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Mallett, J.)
Dissent (Levin, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 825,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 990 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.
