Legal Opinion

Anderson v. Meadowcroft

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided July 19, 1995No. 144PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MURPHY, Chief Judge.

This case draws into question whether interference with an expected inheritance and fraud in the procurement of a will are viable causes of action in Maryland.

I

Paul Peter Meadowcroft died on November 18, 1987. Under his will, dated August 2,1981, he left most of his estate to a cousin, Francis X. Meadowcroft (Francis), as the residuary legatee; he also named Francis as the personal representative.1 The decedent was survived by three brothers, William, Robert and James Meadowcroft, who filed a caveat to the will. While they claimed that the will was a result of fraud…

2Cases cited40 opinions

  1. Alexander & Alexander Inc. v. B. Dixon Evander & Associates, Inc.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1994
  2. K & K Management, Inc. v. Chul Woo LeeCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1989
  3. Latham v. Father DivineNew York Court of Appeals · 1949
  4. MacKlin v. Robert Logan AssociatesCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1994
  5. DeWitt v. DuceSupreme Court of Florida · 1981

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. In Re Last Will and Testament of MelsonSupreme Court of Delaware · 1998
  2. Barclay v. CastruccioCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2020
  3. Geduldig v. PosnerCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1999
  4. Ingersoll v. IngersollDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2008
  5. Upman v. ClarkeCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2000

8 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