Legal Opinion · Concurrence

M.I. Marshall & Ilsley Trust Co. v. McCannon

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided April 18, 1996No. 1 CA-CV 94-0078Published

1ConcurrenceWeisberg, Judge

I agree with the reasoning and result of the majority opinion, but write separately to emphasize, in my view, the burden of proof that will contestants must carry.

We are bound by, and follow, the pronouncement of our supreme court that a party contesting a will because of a testator’s alleged insane delusion has the burden to prove the existence and effect of such delusion by a preponderance of the evidence. In re Estate of Smith, 53 Ariz. 505, 508-09, 91 P.2d 254, 255 (1939). Generally, this requires that “the trier of fact find the existence of the contested fact to be more probable than…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Huffman v. DawkinsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1981
  2. Estate of GreeneArizona Supreme Court · 1932
  3. In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. J-84984Arizona Supreme Court · 1983
  4. In Re the Estate of Smith v. SuttonArizona Supreme Court · 1939
  5. In Re the Estate of RaneySupreme Court of Kansas · 1990

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

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

Powered by the Exa API