Legal Opinion
Woodworth v. Estate of Yunker
Indiana Court of Appeals
Decided December 9, 1996No. 44A03-9601-CV-12PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
GARRARD, Judge.
Maurice Woodworth (“Woodworth”) appeals an adverse judgment claiming that the trial court erred by ruling that Woodworth and five of his witnesses were incompetent under Indiana’s Dead Man’s Statutes. 1
FACTS
On January 29, 1991, Woodworth filed a complaint against the Estate of Siegfried Yunker (“Estate”) based on an alleged oral contract between Woodworth and Siegfried Yunker (‘Yunker”). Woodworth alleged that, under the oral contract, he would provide all the daily care Yunker required in return for repayment in Yunker’s will. It is undisputed that Woodworth cared for…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Hope Lutheran Church v. ChellewIndiana Court of Appeals · 1984
- United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc. v. Indiana Department of State Revenue, Gross Income Tax DivisionIndiana Court of Appeals · 1984
- Moster v. BowerIndiana Court of Appeals · 1972
- Greenfield Builders & Erectors, Inc. v. FellureIndiana Court of Appeals · 1982
3Cited by5 opinions
- A.I. Credit Corporation v. Legion Insurance Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2001
- Fioretti v. Aztar Indiana Gaming Co., LLCIndiana Court of Appeals · 2003
- Policy Management Systems Corp. v. Indiana Department of State RevenueIndiana Tax Court · 1999
- A.I. Credit Corp v. Legion Insur CoCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2001
- Fioretti v. Aztar Indiana Gaming Co., LLCIndiana Court of Appeals · 2003