Legal Opinion

Hills v. Superior Court

California Supreme Court

Decided July 29, 1929No. Docket No. L.A. 11307PublishedCited by 25 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCurtis, J.

Petitioner herein applied to the probate court of the county of Los Angeles for a family allowance out of the estate of his deceased wife. The petition was denied, and petitioner thereafter filed in this court his petition for a writ of mandate directed against said probate court and the judge thereof “commanding them to set said Petition for Family Allowance for further hearing, and upon such further hearing to make an Order granting Petitioner a family allowance.” No question is raised but that mandamus is the appropriate remedy to test the question herein presented. The petition herein…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Ruggles v. WelchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
  2. In re the Estate of NoahCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
  3. McSwain v. CraycroftCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
  4. In Re Estate of ParkinsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
  5. In Re Estate of HeywoodCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. Cox v. Tyrone Power Enterprises Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1942
  2. Trans-Oceanic Oil Corp. v. City of Santa BarbaraCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
  3. In Re Wilson's EstateMontana Supreme Court · 1936
  4. Childers v. ChildersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
  5. Estate of King v. KingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942

20 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