Legal Opinion

Crosby v. Crockeranglo National Bank

California Supreme Court

Decided May 29, 1963No. S. F. No. 21134PublishedCited by 32 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSchauer, J.

Decedent Chester E. Baker left a witnessed will dated December 2, 1960, and a witnessed codicil dated August 15, 1961, both of which were admitted to probate. An unwitnessed handwritten instrument dated January 2, 1962, was • denied probate on the ground that because of’ certain matter imprinted on the sheet of paper whereon the handwriting appears the document did not conform to the require*682ments for a holographic will. Laura Crosby, named as beneficiary in the January 2 instrument, appeals. For reasons which will appear, we have concluded that the order appealed from was erroneous, and…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Estate of WunderleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
  2. In re Estate of SoherCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  3. Estate of JanesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
  4. Estate of BernardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
  5. Thorn v. California Academy of SciencesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920

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

3Cited by32 opinions

  1. Estate of BakerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1963
  2. Estate of BlackCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
  3. Estate of HelmarCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1973
  4. Estate of ChristianCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1976
  5. Estate of NielsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1980

27 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