Churchill v. Allessio
Connecticut Appellate Court
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
FOTI, J.
The plaintiffs Alexander Churchill, Jr., and John Churchill appeal from the judgment for the defendants, rendered after a jury trial, determining that the document offered by the defendants for probate as the last will and testament of Eva Churchelow was revoked by Churchelow and then revived under the doctrine of dependent relative revocation. The plaintiffs claim that the trial court improperly (1) applied the doctrine of dependent relative revocation throughout its rulings on the evidence and in its charge to the jury, (2) permitted the defendants’ handwriting expert to…
2Cases cited39 opinions
- State v. PiskorskiSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1979
- State v. HinesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1998
- State v. SharpeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1985
- Champagne v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1989
- Kelley v. BonneySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Wendt v. WendtConnecticut Appellate Court · 2000
- Perez v. D AND L TRACTOR TRAILER SCHOOLConnecticut Appellate Court · 2009
- American Heritage Agency, Inc. v. GelinasConnecticut Appellate Court · 2001
- State v. MooreConnecticut Appellate Court · 2001
- Churchill v. AllessioSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1998