Legal Opinion

Estate of Plum

California Court of Appeal

Decided October 24, 1967No. Civ. 806PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtConley, P. J.

This appeal from a decree of distribution tests the responsibility of the probate judge in California to administer on his own motion the requirements of section 1020.1 of the Probate Code, which provides: “The court before making distribution of any property of a decedent to any assignee or transferee of any heir, devisee or legatee or before making distribution to any person other than an heir, devisee, or legatee pursuant to any agreement, request or instructions of any heir, devisee or legatee or of any attorney-in-fact of any heir, devisee or legatee may on the motion of any person…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. In Re Estate of CoverCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
  2. In re the Estate of BurdickCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
  3. Schlyen v. SchlyenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954
  4. Woods v. Security-First National BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
  5. Bauer v. BauerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Estate of MullinsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1988
  2. Copley v. CopleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1978
  3. Estate of BoydCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1979
  4. Estate of Hagberg v. HagbergCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1969
  5. Estate of CookCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1976

2 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