Legal Opinion

Creighton University v. Kleinfeld

District Court, E.D. California

Decided December 13, 1995No. CIV-S 94-1594 GEB/PANPublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER *

BURRELL, District Judge.

Defendants Oscar Budd Kleinfeld and Kle-infeld & Heiser (collectively referenced as “Kleinfeld Defendants”) move for summary judgment, arguing that the pay-all-taxes clause in Blanche Kroloffs will did not exonerate the remainder beneficiaries to Yale Kroloffs qualified terminable interest prop erty (“QTIP”) trust from paying the federal taxes attributable to that trust. Further, defendants Mayall, Hurley, Knutsen, Smith & Green (“Mayall, Hurley”) and the Klein-feld Defendants 1 move for summary judgment, arguing they owed no duty to plaintiff Creighton…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Biakanja v. IrvingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1958
  2. Lucas v. HammCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
  3. Minnesota Ex Rel. Pearson v. Probate Court of Ramsey CountySupreme Court of the United States · 1940
  4. Heyer v. FlaigCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
  5. In Re Larry Dean Kirkland and Billie Kirkland, Debtors. Security Pacific National Bank v. Larry Dean Kirkland and Billie KirklandCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Noble v. BruceCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1998
  2. Fabian v. LindsaySupreme Court of South Carolina · 2014
  3. Fabian v. LindsaySupreme Court of South Carolina · 2014

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

Powered by the Exa API