Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: supercat
I would argue that in this particular case the fact that the model wasn't followed should void the presumption, rendering the broader problem irrelevant to this particular case.

It's a good argument. But it isn't a slam dunk, and the judge's decision won't necessarily turn on that argument. He has other tools to justify whatever outcome he wants.

Check out the Browning case ...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1380586/posts?page=217#217

2,391 posted on 04/12/2005 9:14:16 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2388 | View Replies ]


To: Cboldt
It's a good argument. But it isn't a slam dunk, and the judge's decision won't necessarily turn on that argument. He has other tools to justify whatever outcome he wants.

The statute says that any document which follows this model (XXXX) must be considered prima facie valid. The document in this question does not follow the model. I would highly recommend that Ken talk to a lawyer about what needs to happen to ensure that Mae gets a jury trial if the issue of the living will comes up. A judge might not consider the deviations from statutory language to be valid, but a jury almost certainly would.

2,392 posted on 04/12/2005 9:17:52 PM PDT by supercat ("Though her life has been sold for corrupt men's gold, she refuses to give up the ghost.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2391 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson