PRO LIFE PING
TERRI SCHIAVO PING! let me know if you want on/off this ping list
Catholic Ping - let me know if you want on/off this list
Posted on 02/13/2004 8:43:19 AM PST by CFW
Appeals court ruling favors Terri Schiavo's parents
The Associated Press Published on: 02/13/04
TAMPA, Fla. -- Gov. Jeb Bush and the parents of a severely brain-damaged woman won two appellate court victories Friday in their quest to keep her alive against her husband's wishes.
The 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled that Bush's attorneys will be allowed to question witnesses in the court battle over a law that gave the governor authority to reinsert Terri Schiavo's feeding tube after her husband had it removed in October.
The appeals court also ruled that Pinellas Circuit Court Judge W. Douglas Baird did not follow judicial rules when he denied her parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, the ability to intervene in the constitutional challenge to the law.
The appeals court ordered Baird to hold further proceedings on the issue.
Schiavo's husband, Michael, has been battling the Schindlers in court for years to remove Terri's feeding tube so she can die. He says she would not have wanted to be kept alive artificially.
The Schindlers doubt their 40-year-old daughter, who lives in a Clearwater nursing home, had any such end-of-life wishes and believe her condition could improve with therapy. Their daughter has been in a persistent vegetative state for more than 13 years after collapsing from a chemical imbalance.
PRO LIFE PING
TERRI SCHIAVO PING! let me know if you want on/off this ping list
Catholic Ping - let me know if you want on/off this list
The real problem here is not "keeping her alive," but rather her husband's wish to kill her.
http://www.2dca.org/february1304.htm
Good news for the Schindlers! This makes it a Lucky Friday the 13th!
Huge cheer for Terri!!!
Woo Hoo!
Let's Dance All!
Click for Music!
"The appeals court also ruled that Pinellas Circuit Court Judge W. Douglas Baird did not follow judicial rules when he denied her parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, the ability to intervene in the constitutional challenge to the law."
"The appeals court ordered Baird to hold further proceedings on the issue."
Praise the Lord ping!
After previous guardianship proceedings resulted in the determination that the Schindlers' daughter, Mrs. Schiavo, would have chosen to discontinue lifeprolonging procedures after remaining in a persistent vegetative state, Mrs. Schiavo's husband and court-appointed legal guardian of Mrs. Schiavo's person, Michael Schiavo, sought and obtained permission from the court to terminate life-prolonging procedures by withdrawing the hydration and nutrition tube that was sustaining Mrs. Schiavo’s life.
The tube was withdrawn on October 15, 2003. Six days later, on October 21, 2003, the Florida Legislature passed House Bill 35-E, which was enacted as chapter 2003-418, Laws of Florida, known popularly as "Terri's Law." This law allowed the Governor of the State of Florida, in certain situations, to issue a one-time stay and to order reinsertion of the hydration and nutrition tube. The Governor exercised this power and ordered reinsertion of the tube, which was accomplished soon after the Governor’s order. Mr. Schiavo, as guardian of Mrs. Schiavo’s person, then filed the action below, asking the trial court to declare chapter 2003-418 unconstitutional.
The Schindlers moved to intervene in this constitutional challenge,requesting permission to participate in the litigation as parties. Mr. Schiavo, as guardian of Mrs. Schiavo’s person, objected. The trial court denied the Schindlers' motion, finding that "there are no significant factual issues to be developed that might be impacted by their presence as a party." The order went on to suggest that any interest the Schindlers might have could be developed by their filing an amicus curiae brief.
However, under the now well-established rule authorizing intervention,which was originally adopted in Florida in Morgareidge v. Howey, 78 So. 14 (Fla. 1918), the movant’s potential impact on the factual issues to be developed is not determinative.
Rather, the trial court must find not only that the movant has an interest in the matter in litigation, but also that the movant’s interest is “of such a direct and immediate character that the intervener will either gain or lose by the direct legal operation and effect of the judgment.” Id. at 15. The court explained: “In other words, the interest must be that created by a claim to the demand in suit or some part thereof, or a claim to, or lien upon, the property or some part thereof, which is the subject of litigation." Id. In denying the Schindlers' motion to intervene, the trial court did not address either of the elements of the Morgareidge intervention rule. Although the order denying the Schindlers' subsequent motion for rehearing does use language that appears to acknowledge the Morgareidge rule by referring to the insufficiency of the Schindlers’ interest, that order does not explain why the Schindlers’ interest was insufficient pursuant to the above rule.
Because the court did not apply the rule set forth in Morgareidge when it denied the Schindlers’ motion to intervene, the order is reversed.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
FULMER and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.