Legal Opinion

Powell v. Dicksion

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided June 25, 2012No. 107,295PublishedCited by 20 opinions

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

  1. Hulsey v. Mid-America Preferred Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1989
  2. Horizons, Inc. v. Keo Leasing Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1984
  3. Schepp v. HessSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1989
  4. Amarex, Inc. v. BakerSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1983
  5. State v. TorresSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2004

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

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. BOYLE v. ASAP ENERGY, INC.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2017
  2. STATE ex rel. OKLA. STATE BD. OF MEDICAL LICENSURE AND SUPERVISION v. RIVEROSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2021
  3. IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF FULKSSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2020
  4. WELLS v. OKLAHOMA ROOFING & SHEET METALSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2019
  5. Tiernan v. State, Department of TransportationWyoming Supreme Court · 2011

15 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