Legal Opinion

Allmaras v. Allmaras

California Court of Appeal

Decided January 20, 1938No. Civ. 10642PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtKnight, J.

The questions here involved are whether the decedent omitted to provide in his will for his two sons, and if so, whether it appears from the will that such omission was intentional. On proceedings for partial distribution the probate court found affirmatively on the first question, and negatively on the second, and accordingly distributed the entire estate, appraised at approximately $3,500, to said sons.. (Prob. Code, sec. 90.) From the decree so entered the decedent’s brother, claiming to be sole devisee and legatee under the will, has appealed.

Said section 90 of the Probate Code superseded…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. In re the Estate of StevensCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
  2. In Re Estate of TrickettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
  3. In Re Estate of HassellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
  4. Estate of LindsayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
  5. In Re Estate of MinearCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. In Re Benolken's EstateMontana Supreme Court · 1949
  2. Estate of BrownCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
  3. Estate of CochranCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953
  4. Cochems v. CochemsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952
  5. Estate of FernstromCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958

7 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