Legal Opinion

Zabotinsky v. Conklin

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division

Decided March 18, 1966PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

90 N.J. Super. 530 (1966)

218 A.2d 422

HARRY ZABOTINSKY, PLAINTIFF,

v.

CEIL CONKLIN, DEFENDANT.

IN THE MATTER OF THE PROBATE OF THE ALLEGED WILL OF ANN SHORTELL.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division.

Decided March 18, 1966.

Mr. Martin Klughaupt, attorney for plaintiff.

Mr. Joseph J. Cappa and Mr. Carmine Vigorito, attorneys for defendant.

MATTHEWS, J.S.C.

This action was instituted by plaintiff Harry Zabotinsky seeking specific performance of a written contract under which he and decedent Ann Shortell agreed to execute reciprocal, nonrevocable wills. The specific performance action was…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Eggers v. AndersonSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1901
  2. Tooker v. VreelandNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1921
  3. Duvale v. DuvaleNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1896
  4. Tooker v. MapleSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1921
  5. Young v. YoungNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1889

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Woll v. DugasNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1969

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

Powered by the Exa API