Legal Opinion

Robinson v. Werner

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided February 1, 1966PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBeilfuss, J.

The issue confronting the court in this case is the effect of the lapse of a residuary clause in a will.

Appellant argues that when each residuary beneficiary died, there occurred a lapse of his share of the residue, resulting in an intestacy. However, when Emma Petti-bone died survived by two children, the anti-lapse statute 1 prevented a lapse of her share. In effect, appellant argues that she is entitled to one half of the one-fourth residuary share of Emma Pettibone, under the anti-lapse statute, plus the three other one-fourth shares of the other residuary beneficiaries who predeceased…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Will of ReynoldsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1912
  2. Hoermann v. HoermannWisconsin Supreme Court · 1940
  3. Stone v. StoneWisconsin Supreme Court · 1916
  4. Nielsen v. NielsenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1950
  5. Schefe v. CrowleyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1952

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Continental Illinois National Bank & Trust Co. v. SchoendorfWisconsin Supreme Court · 1967
  2. Estate of FarberWisconsin Supreme Court · 1973
  3. McElligott v. MurrayWisconsin Supreme Court · 1974
  4. In Matter of Estate of HillmanCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1985
  5. Hegner v. StaudenmaierWisconsin Supreme Court · 1971

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