Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The doctrine takes its name from the lead case in which it was first pronounced by the New Jersey Supreme Court in 1975: Southern Burlington County N.A.A.C.P. v. Mount Laurel Township (commonly called Mount Laurel I), in which the plaintiffs challenged the zoning ordinance of Mount Laurel Township, New Jersey, on the grounds that it operated to ...
case country location year summary Betancourt v. Trinitas Hospital: United States New Jersey: 2008 A hospital wishes to withhold treatment from someone whom it judges to have no chance of living. Mordechai Dov Brody United States Brooklyn: 2008 The parents of a brain-dead boy want to keep him on life support. Cuthbertson v Rasouli: Canada ...
Quinlan's case continues to raise important questions in moral theology, bioethics, euthanasia, legal guardianship and civil rights. Her case has affected the practice of medicine and law around the world. A significant outcome of her case was the development of formal ethics committees in hospitals, nursing homes and hospices. [1]
Schwartz was the owner of Skyline Management Group LLC., originally maintained headquarters in Wood-Ridge, which ran 95 nursing homes across 11 states and employed approximately 15,000 people.
New Jersey’s Affidavit of Merit Statute (NJ Rev Stat § 2A:53A-27 (2013)) was signed into law in 1995. The statute states that if a person sues for injury, death, or property damage because of a professional's mistake or carelessness, they must provide a special letter from an expert within 60 days after the other side responds to their ...
Case opinions Majority: Hughes (unanimous) In re Quinlan (70 N.J. 10, 355 A.2d 647 (NJ 1976)) was a landmark [ 1 ] 1975 court case in the United States in which the parents of a woman who was kept alive by artificial means were allowed to order her removal from artificial ventilation.
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
Ultimately, Young instituted a federal habeas action. The court determined that the Community Protection Act was civil and, therefore, it could not violate the double jeopardy and ex post facto guarantees. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reasoned that the case turned on whether the Act was punitive "as applied" to Young. [5] 5th