Juhasz v. Juhasz
Ohio Supreme Court
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
- Eggeling v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1929
- Enyart v. EnyartNebraska Supreme Court · 1916
- Appeal of NeelySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889
- Flannery's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
- Watson v. WatsonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1919
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by36 opinions
- Friedlander v. FriedlanderWashington Supreme Court · 1972
- Hamlin v. MerlinoWashington Supreme Court · 1954
- Fletcher v. FletcherOhio Supreme Court · 1994
- Baker v. BakerCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1940
- Gross v. GrossOhio Supreme Court · 1984
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.