Legal Opinion

Ohio Citizens Bank v. Mills

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided August 23, 1989No. 88-1103PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHolmes, J.

The issue presented for our consideration is whether R.C. 3107.15(A)(2), which in effect abrogated the common-law “stranger to the adoption” doctrine, may be applied in construing wills or trust documents created prior to the effective date of such statute. We answer such query in the negative, and accordingly reverse the court of appeals.

*155In determining whether or not an adopted child is included within a class designation in a will or trust instrument, and where a reading of the “four corners” of such instrument does not give a reviewing court the appropriate clues, various additional…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Van Fossen v. Babcock & Wilcox Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1988
  2. Casey v. GallagherOhio Supreme Court · 1967
  3. Albright v. AlbrightOhio Supreme Court · 1927
  4. Flynn v. BredbeckOhio Supreme Court · 1946
  5. Conkle v. ConkleOhio Court of Appeals · 1972

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

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. Domo v. McCarthyOhio Supreme Court · 1993
  2. Stevens v. National City BankOhio Supreme Court · 1989
  3. Central Trust Co. v. SmithOhio Supreme Court · 1990
  4. Wendell v. AmeriTrust Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1994
  5. Arnott v. ArnottOhio Court of Appeals · 2010

17 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