Legal Opinion

Stickley v. Carmichael

Tennessee Supreme Court

Decided May 11, 1992PublishedCited by 28 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

ANDERSON, Justice.

In this will construction action, we granted the application for permission to appeal in order to determine the testatrix’s intent with respect to extra shares that resulted from a stock split that occurred after the will was executed and before the testatrix’s death. The determinative issue is whether the testatrix intended for the additional split shares of stock to pass to the three named legatees of the original shares, or whether the testatrix intended for the extra shares to pass under the residuary clause to the defendant alone.

At the first trial, the trial…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Bell v. ShannonTennessee Supreme Court · 1963
  2. Moore v. NeelyTennessee Supreme Court · 1963
  3. Burdick v. GilpinTennessee Supreme Court · 1959
  4. Davis v. PriceTennessee Supreme Court · 1949
  5. Martin v. TaylorTennessee Supreme Court · 1975

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

3Cited by28 opinions

  1. Fell v. RamboCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 2000
  2. Mitchell v. ChanceCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 2004
  3. In Re the Estate of MilamCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 2005
  4. Estate of Burchfiel v. First United Methodist Church of SeviervilleCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1996
  5. Warrick v. WrightCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1994

23 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