Legal Opinion

Sheinkopf v. Eskin

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Decided July 9, 1976PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

1. The will was properly allowed on proof of the signatures of the testator (the contestant acknowledged that the signature on a copy of the will “looked like” her father’s) and of the attesting witnesses. Goodwin v. Riordan, 333 Mass. 317, 318 (1955). The signature of the first witness was proved by the testimony of one who was acquainted with his signature (e.g., Pataskas v. Judeikis, 327 Mass. 258, 260 [1951]) and by the opinion (not objected to) of a handwriting expert, who testified that she had compared the witness’ signature on the will to several “original” samples of his signature.…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Enders v. WilliamsCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1858
  2. Jones v. JonesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1937
  3. Church v. CrockerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1807
  4. Pataskas v. JudeikisMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1951
  5. Terry v. FosterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1804

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Keville v. McKeeverMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1997
  2. Kudarauskas v. KudarauskasMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1988

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

Powered by the Exa API