Barber v superior court

But it would hardly be consistent with the court's statements, that accrued alimony is a debt for which a judgment may be rendered, that the defendant is bound by the judgment, and that 'the plaintiff is entitled to all the remedies provided by law' for its enforcement, to say that the judgment may be modified or set aside by virtue of a statute which in terms merely authorizes modification of the order for payment of allowances.

BARBER v. SUPERIOR COURT

The doctor who was of course approaching the case after the fact and from a hindsight view, was unable to predict where on this continuum Mr. No formal guardianship proceedings were instituted. The court found for the appellants and determined they must not be tried for murder.

Still less can we say that a judgment for such installments can be so modified. On the other hand, failing to provide insulin would be an omission, but could well be a breach of a legal duty, and therefore the doctor could be liable for the death of the patient. In such respect the provisions of this chapter are cumulative.

Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97, law students since At this juncture we observe that California has adopted the Natural Death Act which permits an adult individual to execute, in advance, a directive for the withholding or withdrawing of life sustaining procedures in the event that he or she later suffers a terminal condition.

Barber v. Superior Court

The court says the main question is whether the omission no longer providing life sustaining care was lawful. Although there is not complete agreement among the courts that have addressed the issue in the civil context, we agree with those which have held that requiring judicial intervention in all cases is unnecessary and may be unwise.

A magistrate dismissed the charges, but the Superior Court reinstated them. If the treating physicians have determined that continued use of a respirator is useless, then they may decide to discontinue it without fear of civil or criminal liability. Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, The court ruled that withholding an injection is an omission, therefore providing an injection would be an act and not an omission.

No appearance for respondent court. The purpose of the full faith and credit clause is to lengthen the arm of the state court and to eliminate state lines as a shelter from judicial proceedings. Thus, the determination as to whether the burdens of treatment are worth enduring for any individual patient depends on facts unique to each case, namely, how long the treatment is likely to extend life and under what conditions.

As one court stated the [ Cal. Several authorities have struggled with this issue and some consensus has been reached on the theory if not the terminology.

Although there may be a duty to provide life-sustaining machinery in the immediate aftermath of a cardio-respiratory arrest, there [ Cal. However, we would be derelict in our duties if we did not provide some general guidelines for future conduct in the absence of such legislation.

At the close of a lengthy preliminary hearing the magistrate ordered the complaint dismissed. It merely sustains biological functions in order to gain time to permit other processes to address the pathology.

No precise guidelines as to when or how these decisions should be made can be provided by this court since this determination is essentially a medical one to be made at a time and on the basis of facts which will be unique to each case.

It suffices to point out that whatever authority over the minors was vested in CPS by the juvenile court, the agency was not granted physical custody. Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, This case, arising as it does in the context of the criminal law, belies the belief expressed by many that such decisions would not likely be subjects of criminal prosecution.

Thus, the determination as to whether the burdens of treatment are worth enduring for any individual patient depends on facts unique to each case, namely, how long the treatment is likely to extend life and under what conditions. While guardianship proceedings might be used in this context, we are not aware of any authority requiring such procedure.

Respondent places his reliance not on them, but upon the North Carolina law, apart from the terms of the decree, as providing for modification of such a judgment.

Finally, since most people are concerned about the well-being of their loved ones, the surrogate may take into account the impact of the decision on those people closest to the patient.

Herbert, the malice could be presumed regardless of their motive. A determination of death must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards. Herbert was in a deeply comatose state from which he was not likely to recover. At that time petitioners informed Mr. Finally, since most people are concerned about the well-being of their loved ones, the surrogate may take into account the impact of the decision on those people closest to the patient.

Hence "disconnecting" of the mechanical devices is comparable to withholding the manually administered injection or medication. Procedural History Trial court dismissed murder and conspiracy charges against the physicians.

Barber v. Barber, 62 U.S. 582 (1858)

We are thus brought to the question whether, by the law of North Carolina, the judgment which petitioner has secured in that state for arrears of alimony is so wanting in finality as not to be within the command of the Constitution and the Act of Congress.

This is not a case where a question of local law is peculiarly within the cognizance of the local courts in which the case arose. Practical utility aside, the Act, according to its own terms, does not purport to be the exclusive means by which such decisions can be made.

Upon recognition of the broad meaning of that term much may some day depend. Obviously the above mentioned concepts evolved and were codified at a time well prior to the development of the modern medical technology which is involved here, which technology has caused our society to rethink its concepts of what constitutes "life" and "death.

This court deems the cessation of life support as an omission of further treatment as opposed to an affirmative act and there is no criminal liability for an omission where no legal duty is owed. Opinion for Barber v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.

Rptr. 2d1 Cal. App. 4th — Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information.

Barber v. Superior Court. California Court of Appeal, Second District, winforlifestats.com3dwinforlifestats.com The actions or omissions of the doctors in Barber were different than the others mentioned because the family approved of the doctors’ actions and gave written consent.

Barber v. Superior Court

Barber v. Superior Court winforlifestats.com3d () Cal. Rptr. Facts: A patient is in a vegetative state.-The doctors remove life support at the request of the family, including nourishment.

NEIL LEONARD BARBER, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; THE PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest. ROBERT JOSEPH NEJDL, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; THE PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest. Maxwell S. Keith, George A. Oakes, Munns. Neil Leonard BARBER, Petitioner, v.

BARBER v. BARBER.

SUPERIOR COURT OF the STATE OF CALIFORNIA for the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Respondent. PEOPLE of the State of California, Real Party in Interest. Robert Joseph NEJDL, Petitioner, v.

Barber v superior court
Rated 3/5 based on 15 review
Barber v Superior Court