Legal Opinion

Rankin v. Hatfield

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 27, 1953No. Civ. 19493PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtShinn, P. J.

Certain beneficiaries of the will of John W. Rankin appeal from a final decree of distribution of his estate, insofar as it declares that respondent, Mary E. Cox, is a beneficiary, contending that the court in probate misconstrued the will, which included three codicils. By holographic will dated August 12, 1941, Mr. Rankin made several specific . bequests and divided his remaining estate into two equal parts. One part was left to his wife, outright, provided she survived him, otherwise to a trust. She survived him, and the provisions of the trust set out in paragraph 9 are not in question.…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Maguire v. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
  2. Estate of Dunphy v. DunphyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
  3. Estate of Edwin R. MackSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
  4. In Re Estate of HeberleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
  5. In Re ArchdeaconNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1944

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Estate of Harmon v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1985
  2. Estate of NewmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1964
  3. Gramespacher v. JohnsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1961
  4. Hintze v. BlackIdaho Court of Appeals · 1994
  5. Mandeau v. FrankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1964

1 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