Legal Opinion

In re the Estate of Luckenbach

New York Surrogate's Court

Decided April 6, 1965PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

John D. Bennett, S.

This is a motion by Eugene Underwood pro se, appearing specially and not -generally, solely for the purpose of quashing the purported service on him on January 11, 1965, of an order to show cause directing that Roscoe H. Hupper, Burlingham Veedor Clark & Hupper, Burlimgham Hupper & *898Kennedy and Luekenbach Steamship Company, Inc., show cause why certain relief prayed for in the petition of Edgar F. Luekenbach, Jr., should not be granted. The relief requested is for the return of legal fees paid to the law firm of Burlingham Veeder Clark & Hupper and Burlingham Hupper &…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Bayer v. BayerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1926
  2. Toeg v. MargoliesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1952
  3. Hamilton Co. v. Hamilton Tile Corp.New York Supreme Court · 1960
  4. Hunt, Hill & Betts v. A. H. Bull Steamship Co.New York Supreme Court · 1957

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Ebker v. Tan Jay International Ltd.District Court, S.D. New York · 1990
  2. Chazen v. Dutchess Properties, New York County Courts1980
  3. Merriman v. Town of ColonieDistrict Court, N.D. New York · 1996

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API