Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Smyth v. Thomas

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided March 4, 1967No. 44,437Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partFatzer, J.

With profound respect, I express my concurrence and disagreement with the court’s holding *258in this case, and, although time presses, I feel obligated to state my views.

To assist the reader, Charles H. Smyth, the testator, is referred to as the testator, and Anna M. Smyth, his wife, is referred to as Anna. Mae Bell Smyth Hyde, the daughter, is referred to as Mae Bell; Charles F. Smyth, the son, is referred to as Charles, and Constance Jane Harrington Winters, the daughter, is referred to as Constance.

First, I concur in a part of the courts holdings and the corresponding portions in its opinion.…

2Cases cited41 opinions

  1. Miller v. MillerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1913
  2. Gardner v. AndersonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1924
  3. Klingman v. GilbertSupreme Court of Kansas · 1913
  4. Copenhaver v. PendletonSupreme Court of Virginia · 1930
  5. Bullock v. WiltbergerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1914

36 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