Cases

37 N.J. Super. 295 (1955) 117 A.2d 284 JAMES R. RUTH, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. IRVING FENCHEL, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division. Argued September 7, 1955. Decided October 11, 1955. *299 Before Judges GOLDMANN, FREUND and CONFORD. Mr. Seymour Margulie

586 N.E.2d 847 (1992) Douglas REAVES, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. No. 15S00-8806-CR-533. Supreme Court of Indiana. February 17, 1992. *850 Susan K. Carpenter, Public Defender of Indiana and M.E. Tuke, Deputy Public Defender, Indianapolis, for appellant. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana and Gary Damon

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 715 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 716 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT

644 So.2d 684 (1994) Theresa WHITE, et al. v. STATE of Louisiana, Through The DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY & CORRECTIONS, et al. No. 93 CA 2034. Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit. October 7, 1994. Writ Denied January 6, 1995. *686 Harold J. Lamy, Daniel Foley, New Orleans, Joseph E. Defley, Jr., Port

210 Or. 371 (1957) 311 P.2d 459 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF CHARLES E. ROBLIN, DECEASED. ROBLIN v. SHANTZ, EXECUTRIX Supreme Court of Oregon. Argued April 4, 1957. Affirmed May 15, 1957. *372 J. Ray Rhoten argued the cause for appellant. On the brief were Rhoten, Rhoten & Speerstra, Salem

21 Md. App. 198 (1974) 319 A.2d 314 ERNEST W. McCOY ET UX. v. EVELYN F. CLARK. No. 652, September Term, 1973. Court of Special Appeals of Maryland. Decided May 17, 1974. The cause was argued before THOMPSON, POWERS and MENCHINE, JJ. *199 Omer T. Kaylor, Jr., with whom were Kaylor, Spence</

USCA11 Case: 18-13592 Document: 304-1 Date Filed: 12/30/2022 Page: 1 of 150 [PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 18-13592 ____________________ DREW ADAMS, a minor, by and th

176 Pa. Superior Ct. 498 (1954) Wann Estate. Superior Court of Pennsylvania. Argued September 29, 1954. November 9, 1954. *499 Before RHODES, P.J., HIRT, GUNTHER, WRIGHT, WOODSIDE and ERVIN, JJ. (ROSS, J., absent). Joseph E. DeSantis, with him Clarence C. Mendelsohn, for appellant. Aaron A. Brumbach, wi

In settling the forms of issues to be submitted to a jury in connection with a caveat of a will, the caveators requested an issue whether the testator at the time of executing the will did "know and understand the contents of said paper writing," and the orphans' court rejected this form of issue and ordered the transmission, in its stead, of an issue whether "the contents of the paper were read to or by the testator, or known to him at or before the time of the alleged execution thereof." An

This action was commenced in the district court of Oklahoma county on March 23, 1942, by defendant in error, herein referred to as plaintiff, against Local Federal Savings Loan Association, to cancel of record a mortgage covering lots 45 and 46, block 1, Bancroft addition to Oklahoma City, executed by Elery L. Ervin and Tessie E. Ervin, husband and wife, who did not own said property. *Page 396 Plaintiff alleged that she was the owner of said prop

This is a will contest involving a purported will dated June 7, 1945, and propounded as the last will and testament of Mrs. Ada Hugger who died September 23, 1945 at the age of seventy. If valid the will revoked an earlier will executed by Mrs. Hugger in 1930. At the conclusion of all the evidence, the trial court overruled a motion for a directed verdict in favor of the first will, sustained a motion made by the proponent of the 1945 will as to the charge of undue influence and submitted onl

29 N.J. 166 (1959) 148 A.2d 481 SILAS COLL, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. ARTHUR SHERRY, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. The Supreme Court of New Jersey. Argued January 5, 1959. Decided February 16, 1959. *168 Mr. Harry Chashin argued the cause for appellant (Messrs. Marcus & Levy, attorneys).

Boyle, P. J., The case at bar is a will contest involving an appeal from the order of the Register of Wills of Allegheny County entered May 3, 1956, admitting to probate a paper writing dated December 19, 1955, as the last will and testament of the above named decedent and granting letters testamentary thereon to Mrs. Edward Hoffmann Grapp, proponent of the will who is a niece by marriage of decedent. Appellants, who are contesta

Appellee's suit in the trial court was for personal injuries suffered November 27, 1940, while riding as a passenger on defendant's bus from Fort Worth to Dallas, claiming that a heavy metal object fell from the front dashboard on her legs; and upon trial, jury verdict and judgment for $2,500, the bus company has duly appealed. Defendant denied that the occurrence resulted from any negligence attributable to it; in which connection a detail of the jury issues and answers is deemed unnecessary

ACCEPTED 13-15-00024-CV THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 7/6/2015 3:52:31 PM

The Ordinary. This is a controversy touching the validity of the alleged last will of Ruth W. Buzby, deceased, which was propounded for probate by George G. Waddington, who is named in it as its executor, before the surrogate of Salem county, and rejected by the orphans court of that county. It was insisted upon the part of the caveator below that the *155

Ruth S. Dyott died at the home of her brother-in-law, Maurice Dyott, at St. Michaels in Talbot County, Maryland, on Tuesday, June 27th, 1933, as the result of a painful and protracted illness. She left to survive her three brothers, Joseph A. Lambdin, since deceased, Charles H. Lambdin, and George H. Lambdin, and a sister, Harriet H. Robinson Dantzebecker. On the 26th day of the January preceding her death, she and Harriet H. Robinson Dantzebecker, herein called "Harriet Robinson," exe

Smith, J. Atkins and wife recovered a verdict and judgment for $1,200 on account of injuries sustained by the female plaintiff in alighting from one of the defendant’s trains. The answer denied negligence on the part of' the company’s servants, and alleged that the plaintiff was-guilty of contributory negligence. The object of the appeal being to test the correctness of the

BURGESS, P. J. This is a suit to set aside a deed made by Waterman Reed, deceased, in his lifetime, to his wife, Ruth Reed, the defendant, on the 31st day of January, 1895, conveying to her the farm and homestead, consisting of 590 acres, upon which they then resided. The land was worth at the time from ten to twelve dollars an acre, and was then encumbered with a deed of trust for $2,850. At the time of the trial, June 3, 1903,

The opinion of the Court was delivered by Huston, J. James W. Bigger was plaintiff below. I will endeavour to state all the prominent facts which appeared in the case. Andrew Bigger owned the land in question, and on the 19th September 1815 conveyed it to his son James Bigger, in consideration of natural love and affection and of £500, paid as stated in the deed. It was recorded the next day, 20th September 1815.