Legal Opinion

Batchelor v. Talbot

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 17, 1982No. Civ. No. 61329PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

COMPTON, J.

This appeal presents the combined issues of the role of the judge and the use of extrinsic evidence in determining the applicability of Probate Code section 92—the antilapse statute in a proceed ings to determine heirship.1 The court below rejected any resort to extrinsic evidence and determined from the language of the will in question that Probate Code section 92 was applicable. We affirm.

The decedent, Elise Casey, had two daughters, Martha and Patricia. Martha in turn had four children and Patricia had six children, giving Elise a total of ten grandchildren. Patricia died…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Parsons v. Bristol Development Co.California Supreme Court · 1965
  2. Estate of RussellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
  3. Hembree v. QuinnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
  4. In Re Estate of DonnellanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
  5. Hunsinger v. LandgrenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Estate of CaseyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1982

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

Powered by the Exa API