Legal Opinion

Pihlajamaa v. Kaihlan

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 27, 2001No. D036065PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

*1126Opinion

McDONALD, J.

Aune Maria Pihlajamaa (Maria) appeals an order denying her Probate Code section 213201 petition (Petition) for a determination whether her proposed action (Proposed Action) to enforce an alleged domestic partnership agreement with and interpret the will of Viljo Peter Kaila (Viljo) would be a contest under the no contest clause of Viljo’s will. Maria contends the trial court erred by concluding (1) extrinsic evidence was admissible to interpret the no contest clause, and (2) admission of extrinsic evidence to interpret that clause would require a determination of the merits…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. G. W. Thomas Drayage & Rigging Co.California Supreme Court · 1968
  2. Winet v. PriceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992
  3. Estate of RussellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
  4. Hembree v. QuinnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
  5. McConnell v. DoolittleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Estate of KailaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2001

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

Powered by the Exa API