Legal Opinion

Hurley v. Blankenship

Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976)

Decided March 12, 1954PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CAMMACK, Justice.

We held in Hurley v. Blankinship, 313 Ky. 49, 229 S.W.2d 963, 21 A.L.R.2d 817, that R. F. Blankenship had properly executed a will. We held also that Mr. Blankenship had mental capacity to make a will, and that it was not the result of undue influence. After Mr. Blankenship executed his will, he deeded some of his property to those to whom he had given it in his will, including some of the beneficiaries who questioned the validity of the will. He made an unsuccessful attempt also to transfer certain stocks by deed.

Mr. Blankenship’s will contained this provision : ■ .. -

“If…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Moorman v. Louisville Trust Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1918
  2. Hurley v. BlankinshipCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1950
  3. Andrew's Ex'r v. SpruillCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1937
  4. Moorman v. Louisville Trust Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1918

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Commonwealth Bank & Trust Co. v. YoungCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 2012
  2. Ladd v. LaddCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 2010
  3. Strunk v. LawsonCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 2013

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

Powered by the Exa API