Legal Opinion

Voden v. Yates

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided November 20, 1968PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MENGLER, J. (Pro Tempore).

This is an appeal from a decree holding that the plaintiffs were not pretermitted grandchildren of testatrix, Jane E. Robinson. The plaintiffs’ contention is: (1) that the will mentions four grandchildren of Stewart Yoden, deceased, son of testatrix, but does not mention the plaintiffs who are his four children, and (2) that the will did not operate to name or provide for them and they are therefore entitled to distribution as pretermitted heirs.

Paragraph Y of the will provides as follows:

“I hereby declare that my only heirs-at-law at this time are my husband, ISAAC…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Harlan v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
  2. In Re Shepherd's EstateOregon Supreme Court · 1935
  3. Gerrish v. GerrishOregon Supreme Court · 1880
  4. Neal v. DavisOregon Supreme Court · 1909
  5. Gehlen v. GehlenWashington Supreme Court · 1913

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Allen v. HallOregon Supreme Court · 1999
  2. Nicholson v. SorensenAlaska Supreme Court · 1973
  3. Philpott v. YeomanCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1971

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

Powered by the Exa API