Legal Opinion

Estate of Shumway v. Gavette

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided September 15, 2000No. CV-99-0391-PRPublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

FELDMAN, Justice.

¶ 1 We granted review to determine whether the penalty, or so-called in térro- rem, clause in a will should be enforced against those who contest the will. Per A.R.S. § 14-2517, the penalty clause is unenforceable if probable cause existed to contest the will. Under the facts of this case of first impression and according to what we conclude to be the proper definition of probable cause, we find that the penalty clause should not be enforced. We thus vacate part of the court of appeals’ opinion, reverse the portion of the trial court’s judgment dealing with enforcement…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. State v. BucciniArizona Supreme Court · 1991
  2. In Re O'Connor's EstateArizona Supreme Court · 1952
  3. In Re Pitt's EstateArizona Supreme Court · 1960
  4. Winningham v. WinninghamTennessee Supreme Court · 1998
  5. Hockett v. City of TucsonCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1983

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Chalpin v. SnyderCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2008
  2. Mullin v. BrownCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2005
  3. Stewart v. StewartCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2012
  4. Horton v. MitchellCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2001
  5. Mashler v. MashlerCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2018

10 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