Legal Opinion

Brinkman v. Hovermale, Admr.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided March 31, 1938No. 15,418PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDudine, P. J.

This is an action instituted by appellants against appellees to contest the will of Roll T. Brinkman, deceased.

The issues were formed by an amended complaint, a supplemental complaint and answers in general denial. A guardian ad litem was appointed for the minor defendants and said guardian ad litem filed answers in general denial for and in behalf of them.

The cause was submitted to a jury for trial and the jury returned a verdict for the defendants “that said will of Roll T. Brinkman is a valid will.” Appellants duly filed a motion for new trial which was overruled and appellants assign said…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Pearcy v. Michigan Mutual Life InsuranceIndiana Supreme Court · 1887
  2. Davis v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1871
  3. Alabama Power Co. v. HallSupreme Court of Alabama · 1925
  4. Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Railway Co. v. HendricksIndiana Supreme Court · 1891
  5. Drew v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1890

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Van Sickle v. Kokomo Water Works Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1959
  2. Rohrkaste v. City of Terre HauteIndiana Court of Appeals · 1984
  3. Kastin E. Slaybaugh v. State of IndianaIndiana Court of Appeals · 2015
  4. Homestead Farms, Inc. v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 1976
  5. Miresso v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 1975

2 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