Crosby v. Crockeranglo National Bank
California Supreme Court
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
- Estate of WunderleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
- In re Estate of SoherCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Estate of JanesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
- Estate of BernardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
- Thorn v. California Academy of SciencesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by32 opinions
- Estate of BakerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1963
- Estate of BlackCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
- Estate of HelmarCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1973
- Estate of ChristianCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1976
- Estate of NielsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1980
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.