Legal Opinion

Cook v. Cook

Washington Supreme Court

Decided May 25, 1972No. 41915Published

1DissentHale, J.

(dissenting) — I agree with neither the court nor the concurring opinion. I would affirm. One seeking to prove a contract with a dead man or lay claim to his property should carry a heavy burden of proof as a matter of elemental justice. The court recognizes that oral promises to make a will or devise property are regarded with suspicion and require very strong evidence to support them. Alexander v. Lewes, 104 Wash. 32, 175 P. 572 (1918); Resor v. Schaefer, 193 Wash. 91, 74 P.2d 917 (1937); Arnold v. Beckman, 74 Wn.2d 836, 447 P.2d 184 (1968). And the law, both statutory and decisional for…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Alexander v. LewesWashington Supreme Court · 1918
  2. Jennings v. D'HoogheWashington Supreme Court · 1946
  3. Resor v. SchaeferWashington Supreme Court · 1937
  4. Bicknell v. GuentherWashington Supreme Court · 1965
  5. Arnold v. BeckmanWashington Supreme Court · 1968

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