Rosebush v. Oakland County Prosecutor
Michigan Court of Appeals
491 N.W.2d 633 (1992)

- Written by Katrina Sumner, JD
Facts
In 1987 Joelle Rosebush, who was 10 years old, was in a traffic accident that severed her spinal cord, sent her into cardiac arrest, and paralyzed her from the neck down. Joelle could not breathe without a ventilator and entered a persistent vegetative state, although she was not brain dead. Joelle’s prognosis was that she would never regain consciousness. For many months, Joelle’s parents (petitioners) held out hope of improvement. However, after almost a year, it was clear that Joelle had not improved and would not improve. Joelle’s parents consulted her doctors, their priest, and their attorney and came to the decision to terminate life support. When staff at the nursing home where Joelle was receiving care learned that Joelle would be transferred to a hospital for the termination of life support, they contacted the Oakland County prosecutor (respondent) (the prosecutor), who blocked the transfer. The prosecutor sought and first received an ex parte temporary restraining order to prevent either Joelle’s transfer to the hospital or the withdrawal of life-sustaining care. The prosecutor later sought and received a preliminary injunction to the same effect. After a trial that lasted seven days, the injunction was dissolved, and a court allowed Joelle’s parents to make the decisions regarding their daughter’s care. The court ruled that the best-interests standard was the proper standard to guide the parent’s decision in the case of a minor child who was not legally competent to make decisions regarding medical care. Joelle’s parents authorized the removal of the ventilator, and Joelle died shortly thereafter. The prosecutor appealed. Although Joelle’s death rendered the appeal moot, the court of appeals undertook appellate review because the case involved issues of importance that could occur again and evade review.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (MacKenzie, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 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.