Legal Opinion

Kintopp v. Pieper

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided April 7, 1947PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFritz, J.

The above-named appellants objected to the admission to probate of the instrument in question on the grounds that the execution thereof was procured by undue influence exercised by Arthur Kintopp and others, that at the time of such execution the testator was not of sound mind and sufficient mental capacity to make a will, and that the instrument was not executed in the manner required by law. Upon the trial of the resulting issues, the court found that the instrument in question was duly executed by testator as his will in the presence of two subscribing witnesses in due manner and form;…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Sweda v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1932
  2. Birdsall v. FraenzelWisconsin Supreme Court · 1913
  3. Miller Saw-Trimmer Co. v. CheshireWisconsin Supreme Court · 1922
  4. Belt Line Realty Co v. DickWisconsin Supreme Court · 1930
  5. Graham v. ZellersWisconsin Supreme Court · 1931

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Dawe v. Dr Reuven Bar-Levav & Associates, PcMichigan Supreme Court · 2010
  2. Ische v. IscheWisconsin Supreme Court · 1948
  3. Mickoleski v. BeckerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1948
  4. Wroblewski v. Exchange Insurance AssociationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1959
  5. Patrykus v. TracyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1947

2 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