Legal Opinion

Dyke v. Ross

California Supreme Court

Decided July 27, 1916No. S. F. No. 7344PublishedCited by 11 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Mastick & Partridge, J. W. Dignan, and H. F. Chadbourne, for Appellants.

1Opinion of the CourtHenshaw, J.

Appellants instituted a contest to revoke the probate of the will of their deceased father, upon the ground that at the time of the execution of the will he was incompetent and was not of sound and disposing mind and memory. They introduced evidence, and when they rested their case the court granted a motion for a nonsuit upon the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence.

Opposing counsel do not agree upon the principles governing trial courts in granting or refusing to grant nonsuits for insufficiency of the evidence. So often and so clearly has this court spoken upon the subject that it…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. In Re the Estate of ArnoldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
  2. Estate of CasparCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
  3. Estate of ChevallierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
  4. Estate of MotzCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
  5. Freese v. Hibernia Savings & Loan SocietyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. In Re the Estate of NewhallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
  2. Galbraith v. PaniniCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1923
  3. Brown v. NelsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
  4. Frazier v. FrazierNebraska Supreme Court · 1936
  5. Estate of RossCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919

6 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