Legal Opinion

In Re Oppenheimer's Estate

Montana Supreme Court

Decided June 29, 1925No. 5,739PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Under the authorities, the right to the widow's allowance being granted as a matter of public policy, any waiver of the same must appear by clear and unambiguous language. (11 Cal. Jur., pp. 506-509; Woerner on American Law of Administration, p. 255.) "It makes no difference that the widow has sufficient property of her own out of which to support herself." (Estate ofLux, 100 Cal. 595, 35 P. 345, 639; Estate of Bump, 152 Cal. 274,92 P. 643.) "Right of family allowance paramount to right of testamentary disposition." (Sulzberger v. Sulzberger,50 Cal. 385; Estate of Davis, 69 Cal. 458, 10 P.…

2Cases cited63 opinions

  1. In re Estate of WalkerlyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
  2. Williams v. . BarkleyNew York Court of Appeals · 1900
  3. McNutt v. McNuttIndiana Supreme Court · 1888
  4. Estate of YoellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
  5. Landers v. WhitneyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Estate of OppenheimerMontana Supreme Court · 1926
  2. Somerville v. SomervilleSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1936
  3. In Re Estate of GleinMontana Supreme Court · 1973
  4. Affiliated Banc Group, Ltd. v. ZehringerCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1995
  5. State Elevator Co. v. Farmers' Elevator Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1933

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

Powered by the Exa API