Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v. Schiavo

357 F. Supp. 2d 1378 (2005)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 31,100+ case briefs...

Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v. Schiavo

United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida

357 F. Supp. 2d 1378 (2005)

Facts

Terri Schindler grew up in a close Roman Catholic family in New Jersey. Terri met Michael Schiavo (defendant) and dated him for two years before they wed. Michael and Terri Schiavo moved to Florida, and Terri’s parents (plaintiffs) and sister followed. Terri began treatment with physicians for an undisclosed condition. Terri suffered cardiac arrest apparently due to a systemic potassium imbalance. Michael called 911, the paramedics performed cardiopulmonary resuscitation and took Terri to the hospital, and Terri never regained consciousness. Terri remained in a comatose, vegetative state at a nursing home with nourishment and hydration delivered through a feeding tube. Over eight years after Terri’s cardiac arrest, Michael filed a petition as guardian and surrogate decision maker for the authority to discontinue Terri’s artificial life support as a decision she would choose for herself. The state court granted Michael’s petition according to Florida’s statutory scheme that allowed for substituted judgment of an incapacitated patient. Michael discontinued Terri’s artificial life support and moved her to a hospice facility. Congress passed and the president signed emergency legislation designed to give Terri’s parents an opportunity to challenge the discontinuation of Terri’s life support. Terri’s parents brought an action in the district court, alleging that the state-court proceedings that allowed Michael as the healthcare proxy for an incapacitated person to discontinue Terri’s artificial life support violated Terri’s due-process and equal-protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Terri’s parents also claimed that the state-court proceedings violated Terri’s right to the free exercise of her Roman Catholic religion under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). Terri’s parents sought a temporary restraining order directing Michael and the hospice facility to return Terri to the hospital to restart her artificial life support.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Whittemore, 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 557,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead 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.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 557,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 31,100 briefs, keyed to 984 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 557,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 31,100 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership