Legal Opinion
Ohanneson v. Lambrinidou
California Supreme Court
Decided April 11, 1950No. L. A. No. 20727PublishedCited by 38 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
THE COURT.
Contestants appeal from an order admitting a holographic instrument to probate as a codicil to a previously admitted witnessed will. Ruby Sargavak died March 22, 1947. By a formal will drawn by respondent Ohanneson as her attorney and executed July 9, 1945, she left all her property to the appellants. Respondent Mahdesian, as executor under that will, offered it for probate on March 31, 1947. On May 6, 1947, respondent Ohanneson offered the following instrument for probate as a. codicil to that will :
“1566 W-29th St.
Los Angeles 7, Cal.
Sep 29,1946
Sunday Evening
To Whom It Mat Concern :
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Colton v. ColtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Williams v. KiddCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
- Sontheimer v. PierceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
- Whitlow v. DurstCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- Donahue v. SweeneyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by38 opinions
- Watenpaugh v. State Teacher's Retirement SystemCalifornia Supreme Court · 1959
- Estate of SargavakCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
- McQuarrie v. KuttlerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
- Kurkjian v. OhannesonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
- People v. One 1948 Chevrolet Convertible CoupeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.