Legal Opinion

Estate of Ausseresses

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 1, 1960No. Civ. 18327PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDuniway, J.

In this will contest, based solely upon undue influence, the court below granted a nonsuit and contestants appeal. We find that the court’s decision was correct.

“ It is now settled that ‘. . . when the contestant has shown that the proponent of a will sustains a confidential relationship toward the testator, and actively partiepates in procuring the execution of the will, and unduly profits thereby, the burden then shifts to the proponent to prove that the will was not induced by his undue influence. ’ (Estate of Pellegrini, 138 Cal.App.2d 143, 145 [291 P.2d 558] ; Estate of Rugani, 108…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Peterson v. LoganCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
  2. Estate of LingenfelterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952
  3. Estate of LatourCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
  4. Jenkins v. AndersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
  5. Llewellyn v. CheesewrightCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Estate of FritschiCalifornia Supreme Court · 1963
  2. Estate of MannCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
  3. Goetz v. RobertsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1967
  4. Estate of WrightCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
  5. Estate of NiquetteCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968

3 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