Legal Opinion

Estate of Caspar

California Supreme Court

Decided February 18, 1916No. L. A. No. 4284. Department TwoPublishedCited by 87 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Joseph L. Lewisohn, Daniel M. Hunsaker, J. Henry Harris, Hunsaker & Britt, and Hunsaker & Harris, for Appellant.

1Opinion of the Court

Shaopin Caspar died testate in the county of Los Angeles and his will was probated. Appellant, Sahmin Babik, as his cousin and one of his heirs at law, instituted this contest to revoke the probate of the will. Trial was had before a jury and the issues were submitted to that jury for determination. They were all found in favor of the contestant. Subsequently the court set aside the verdict of the jury on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence to sustain it. A second trial was had before a second jury and the evidence presented to that jury was (under stipulation) precisely the same…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. McDonald v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1901
  2. In Re the Estate of ArnoldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
  3. Estate of ChevallierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
  4. Estate of MotzCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
  5. In Re Estate of HigginsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by87 opinions

  1. Estate of LancesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
  2. Teel v. GaskillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
  3. Gavin v. Protestant Episcopal BishopCalifornia Supreme Court · 1933
  4. Hunt v. United Bank & Trust Co.California Supreme Court · 1930
  5. Leonard v. Watsonville Community HospitalCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956

82 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API