Legal Opinion

Corcoran v. Cushing

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 20, 2000No. A089985PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

RICHMAN, J.*

In this case of first impression, we are called upon to interpret section 21350 of the Probate Code insofar as it restricts transfers to a fiduciary who “transcribes the instrument or causes it to be transcribed.” (Subd. (a)(4).) We then apply that interpretation to the will of Regis Swetmann, who left the residue of his estate to George Cushing (Cushing), his conservator (who also had, for many years, a power of attorney), who procured for decedent the company which produced the will, introduced the company representative to him, and as conservator paid for the services,…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Oakland Paving Co. v. HiltonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
  2. Estate of LingenfelterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952
  3. Thornton v. RhodenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1966
  4. United States v. Frank Fiorillo, Jr., and Art KruegerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999
  5. Estate of GravesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Restate of SwetmannCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000

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

Powered by the Exa API