Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Estate of: I. Wilner Appeal of: Baker, L.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided July 19, 2016No. 136 MAP 2014Published

1ConcurrenceJustice Todd

I agree with the majority that the Probate, Estates and Fiduciaries Code does not mandate application of the rule, set forth in Hodgson’s Estate,1 that a party offering a lost will for probate must demonstrate its contents by the testimony of two witnesses. Yet, I would decline, at this juncture, to overrule Hodgson’s Estate in full, but, rather, would adopt a narrow exception thereto under the circumstances of this case. On that basis, I concur in the majority’s ultimate decision to remand for reinstatement of the orphans’ court’s order. My disagreements with the majority’s analysis follow.

Fi…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. MaldonadoSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
  2. Meyer v. Community College of Beaver CountySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
  3. Giant Eagle, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2012
  4. Hodgson's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
  5. Estate of: I. Wilner Pet of: Baker, L.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2014

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

Powered by the Exa API