Powell v. Dicksion
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
1Opinion of the Court
KAUGER, J.;
T 1 The three dispositive issues presented by this appeal and counter-appeal are whether: 1) the objection to admission of the holographic will was timely;1 2) the paternity statute, 84 0.S.2001 215,2 applies to intestate *285and probate proceedings; and 3) 58 0.8.2001 122 3 prohibits the appointment of a business partner as personal representative when the will does not make any provisions for such an appointment. We hold that; 1) under the facts presented, the objection to the admission of the holographic will was not untimely; 2) 84 0.8.2001 215 applies to intestate and probate…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Hulsey v. Mid-America Preferred Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1989
- Horizons, Inc. v. Keo Leasing Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1984
- Schepp v. HessSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1989
- Amarex, Inc. v. BakerSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1983
- State v. TorresSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2004
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- BOYLE v. ASAP ENERGY, INC.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2017
- STATE ex rel. OKLA. STATE BD. OF MEDICAL LICENSURE AND SUPERVISION v. RIVEROSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2021
- IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF FULKSSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2020
- WELLS v. OKLAHOMA ROOFING & SHEET METALSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2019
- Tiernan v. State, Department of TransportationWyoming Supreme Court · 2011
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.