Legal Opinion

Estate of Grussing

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 25, 1936No. Civ. 1972PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

TURRENTINE J., pro tem.

Thomas Grussing died testate. His will was duly admitted to probate, and Henry Grussing, the executor therein named, was thereafter appointed and qualified as such executor. He was an heir at law of said decedent and at- all times since his appointment was and now is the duly appointed, qualified and acting executor of the will of decedent. After his qualification and on May 14, 1935, decedent’s widow filed her petition for an order to set apart a probate homestead, Leonard Evans, the attorney for the executor and said estate being duly served with a copy thereof on the…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. In Re Estate of BakerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
  2. Estate of DavisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
  3. Andrada v. KelseyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
  4. In re Pina's EstateCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
  5. In Re Estate of AllenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Howard v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
  2. Lilienkamp v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1939
  3. Estate of ArmstrongCalifornia Supreme Court · 1937
  4. Estate of HartCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
  5. Howaldt v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941

4 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