Emanuel v. Feierman
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the CourtTobriner, J.
We believe respondent’s instant petition for instructions as to whether she should distribute certain bequests to Soviet claimants does not properly fall within section 588 of the Probate Code which was invoked in the instant matter. Even if the section applied, we cannot sustain the order upon either of two possible hypotheses as to the basis of the court’s ruling. The first possibility is that the court rested its order upon the finding that the provisions of the will could not be executed and the bequests actually received by the claimants; yet the court failed to render any such finding.…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Estate of SchluttigCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
- Caruthers v. HensleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Clippinger v. BreartonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
- Estate of GogabashveleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1961
- People v. GoodallCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Linsteadt v. NicholasCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
- Ehret v. IchiokaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1967
- Estate of EngCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1964
- Shu Tong Ng v. KristovichCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1964