Legal Opinion

Hartman v. Friesner

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 4, 1937No. Civ. S. C. 51PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtYork, J.

—Pursuant to the provisions of section 1080 of the Probate Code, appellant, who is the administrator with the will annexed of the estate of Marian Post Hartman, deceased, petitioned the court as an heir at law and as a devisee and legatee under the last will of said deceased, for an order determining the interest or heirship of respondent in the property of said estate. Respondent filed her written statement setting forth her claim under the will of decedent. Prom a decree adjudging appellant entitled to an automobile and certain household effects, together with a life estate in income from…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. In Re Estate of BlakeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1910
  2. Edwardson v. HansenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
  3. Wilson v. WilsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
  4. Estate of JohnsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
  5. O'Neill v. WilliamsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Salmonski v. BardzinskiCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
  2. Estate of BournCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1938
  3. Gore v. BingamanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1938
  4. Estate of TkachukCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1977
  5. Estate of Williams v. LittleSupreme Court of Kansas · 1944

10 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