Legal Opinion · Dissent

Biggins v. Shore

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 19, 1989No. 118 E.D. Appeal Dkt. 1988Published

1Dissent

dissenting.

It is ludicrous to suggest that there was any actual reliance by either Mr. or Mrs. Biggins on either the new or the old Restatement rule at issue in this case. Neither were lawyers. Neither were counseled by lawyers at the time the critical events in this case occurred. Mr. Biggins merely adopted certain “homemade” and extremely inexact devices to arrange his financial affairs and we must now decide which is the sounder of two rules that ought to be applied to the facts at hand. I vigorously dissent from the view expressed by the majority that that choice depends solely or even…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Greene County v. Southern Surety Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
  2. Girard College TrusteeshipSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1958
  3. Innes v. PotterSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1915
  4. Gilmore v. Century Bank & Trust Co.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1985
  5. Logan v. GlassSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1939

24 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