Legal Opinion

Detzel v. Nieberding

Hamilton County Probate Court

Decided June 16, 1966No. 5496PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDavies, J.

The evidence in this case discloses that Wilhelmina C. Guenther died testate on July 5, 1965. After making several specific bequests, she provided that the residue of her estate be converted into cash, that certain contingent monetary bequests be made to three brothers, a sister, Mary Detzel, a sister-in-law, a niece and a nephew, with a stipulation that the legatee “be living at the time of” the testatrix’s death, and that the remainder of the residue be distributed in designated fractions to three named charitable institutions. The monetary be*263quest to Mary Detzel reads as follows: ‘ ‘ To my…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Wachendorf v. ShaverOhio Supreme Court · 1948
  2. Carter v. Division of WaterOhio Supreme Court · 1946
  3. Vollmer v. McGowanIllinois Supreme Court · 1951
  4. Kunkel v. KunkelSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
  5. Flynn v. BredbeckOhio Supreme Court · 1946

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Shalkhauser v. BeachCuyahoga County Probate Court · 1968
  2. Day v. BrooksCuyahoga County Probate Court · 1967
  3. Royston v. WattsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1992
  4. In Re Estate of StrobleCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 1981
  5. Polen v. BakerOhio Supreme Court · 2001

3 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