Legal Opinion

Juhasz v. Juhasz

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 27, 1938No. 26867PublishedCited by 36 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWilliams, J.

The appellants insist that the Court of Appeals committed prejudicial error in finding the antenuptial agreement invalid as a matter of law and entering final judgment for the widow, Mary Kenyo Juhasz. In their behalf appellants make two contentions : First, they insist that under the evidence the antenuptial contract was entered into under such circumstances that its validity in view of its formation was a question of fact for the determination of the trial court; and, second, that even if the first contention is unsound, nevertheless the agreement is valid, subsisting and binding because it…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Eggeling v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1929
  2. Enyart v. EnyartNebraska Supreme Court · 1916
  3. Appeal of NeelySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889
  4. Flannery's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
  5. Watson v. WatsonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1919

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

3Cited by36 opinions

  1. Friedlander v. FriedlanderWashington Supreme Court · 1972
  2. Hamlin v. MerlinoWashington Supreme Court · 1954
  3. Fletcher v. FletcherOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  4. Baker v. BakerCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1940
  5. Gross v. GrossOhio Supreme Court · 1984

31 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