Legal Opinion · Dissent

Niemann v. Zacharias

Nebraska Supreme Court

Decided April 24, 1970No. 37323Published

1DissentSpencer, J.

In my opinion, the majority opinion herein rather than construing the will of Alma Hopkins emasculates it by in effect striking the last portion of the second paragraph. This we cannot do. It is our duty to ascertain a testator’s intent and to give effect to that intent if it can legally be done. To do this, we must try to give effect to every part and portion of the will. We said in Elrod v. Heirs, Devisees, etc., 156 Neb. 269, 55 N. W. 2d 673: “Each word and provision of the conveyance must be given such significance as will make effective the intention of the parties.”

We have had a statute…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Ledwith v. Bankers Life InsuranceNebraska Supreme Court · 1952
  2. Weller v. NoffsingerNebraska Supreme Court · 1899
  3. Carlsen v. StateNebraska Supreme Court · 1934
  4. State Ex Rel. City of Grand Island v. Union Pacific RailroadNebraska Supreme Court · 1950
  5. Elrod v. Heirs in the Estate of GiffordNebraska Supreme Court · 1952

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