Legal Opinion

Veitch v. Ericksen

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 24, 1944No. Civ. 12663PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWard, J.

—This appeal is taken from the decree of distribution in the estate of Mainert Nielsen, deceased, distributing one-half of the estate to appellants, children of Nielsen’s predeceased spouse, Sarah, and one-half to respondents, sisters and nephews of Nielsen.

Appellants’ opening brief is on file. Respondents have failed to file a reply brief within the time prescribed by the Rules on Appeal, and, pursuant to rule 17(b) of these rules the case has been submitted. (Zeigler v. Bonnell, 52 Cal. App.2d 217 [126 P.2d 118]; Ramacciotti v. Galiano, 59 Cal. App.2d 8 [137 P.2d 722].)

Appellants contend…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Middlebrook v. PerkinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
  2. Zeigler v. BonnellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
  3. Murphey v. American Jewish CongressCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
  4. Estate of TaitmeyerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943
  5. Estate of SchaetzelCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Randall v. Department of InstitutionsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
  2. Estate of RudmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
  3. Rose v. ElmerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
  4. Estate of AuclairCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
  5. Bolter v. HatfieldCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957

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

Powered by the Exa API