Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Shattuck v. Shattuck, 192 P.2d 229.

71 citing documents.

Marvin Johnson, PC v. Myers 907 P.2d 67 Ariz. 1995
Marvin Johnson, PC v. Myers 907 P.2d 67 Ariz. 1995
For example, , supported its conclusion “that a probate court is a court of limited jurisdiction.” Johnson, 181 Ariz. at 3 , 887 P.2d at 3 .
Marvin Johnson, P.C. v. Superior Court 887 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Marvin Johnson, P.C. v. Superior Court 887 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge 2 v. Superior Court 596 P.2d 701 Ariz. 1979
Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge 2 v. Superior Court 596 P.2d 701 Ariz. 1979
Secrist v. State, 2 Ariz.App.
Ivancovich v. Meier 595 P.2d 24 Ariz. 1979
Ivancovich v. Meier 595 P.2d 24 Ariz. 1979
Gonzalez v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 570 P.2d 1077 Ariz. 1977
Gonzalez v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 570 P.2d 1077 Ariz. 1977
125 P. 707 (1912); , 135 P. 724 (1913)
Govan v. Industrial Commission 532 P.2d 533 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Govan v. Industrial Commission 532 P.2d 533 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
O’ , ; , , .” The application of the doctrine in workmen’s , cited in Hoff, supra, , 115 P
Roberson v. Teel 513 P.2d 977 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Roberson v. Teel 513 P.2d 977 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
It has long been settled that “a decree of final distribution is a judicial construction of a will, conclusive upon all heirs, devisees and legatees, and immune from collateral attack unless it is void on its face.”
Estate of Hash v. Henderson 507 P.2d 99 Ariz. 1973
Norman v. Transamerica Title Insurance 495 P.2d 138 Ariz. 1972
Norman v. Transamerica Title Insurance 495 P.2d 138 Ariz. 1972
In Re Estate of Pfeffer 492 P.2d 27 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
In Re Estate of Pfeffer 492 P.2d 27 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
It contends that the reason is apparent when we consider the rule in California whence our probate code was taken, , where all of the community property as well as the husband's separate estate is liable for satisfaction *150 of all debts contracted by the husband during marriage.
Cooper v. Commonwealth Title of Arizona 489 P.2d 1262 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Cooper v. Commonwealth Title of Arizona 489 P.2d 1262 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Carpenter v. Carpenter, 244 N.C.
Valley National Bank v. Lewin 488 P.2d 671 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
In Re Estate and Guardianship of Vermeersch 488 P.2d 671 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Valley National Bank v. Lewin 488 P.2d 671 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
ons, shall be had in accordance with, and shall be governed by, the laws relating to estates of decedents, except as otherwise provided by law.” In Arizona, as in many western states, including the neighboring state of California, the probate court is not a court having jurisdiction limited to purely ministerial functions, , : “ * * * the probate court is one of exclusive, original and complete jurisdiction invested with all necessary powers incident to the administration of estates,: the probat
In Re Estate and Guardianship of Vermeersch 488 P.2d 671 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
In Arizona, as in many western states, including the neighboring state of California, the probate court is not a court having jurisdiction limited to purely ministerial functions, , : "* * * the probate court is one of exclusive, original and complete jurisdiction invested with all necessary powers incident to the administration of estates; the probating of wills; the trying of contests thereof; the interpretation of wills; the determination of heirship; and the com
Norman v. Transamerica Title Insurance 485 P.2d 1190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Norman v. Transamerica Title Insurance 485 P.2d 1190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
In determining this question California law is instructive as we have adopted our probate statutes from California, In re Lynch’s Estate, , ; .
Weller v. Weller 480 P.2d 379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Weller v. Weller 480 P.2d 379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Schwartz v. Buder, 315 S.W.2d 867 (Mo.App.1958); , , In re Estate of Jones, 10 Ariz.App.
In Re Estate of Jones 460 P.2d 16 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
In Re Estate of Jones 460 P.2d 16 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Palms Clinic & Hospital, Inc. v. Arizona Society for Crippled Children & Adults, Inc. 433 P.2d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
In Re Estate of Daley 433 P.2d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
In Re Estate of Daley 433 P.2d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
In its brief, the appellant raises the issue of estoppel, claiming that the November 26, 1962 decree of partial distribution to the San Diego Trust fixed its status as a beneficiary under the will, , and , and since it was an appealable order, (A.R.S.
Palms Clinic & Hospital, Inc. v. Arizona Society for Crippled Children & Adults, Inc. 433 P.2d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
In its brief, the appellant raises the issue of estoppel, claiming that the November 26, 1962 decree of partial distribution to the San Diego Trust fixed its status as a beneficiary under the will, , and In re Balke’s Estate, , and since it was an appeal-able order, (A.R.S.
State Ex Rel. Industrial Commission v. Smith 431 P.2d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
State Ex Rel. Industrial Commission v. Smith 431 P.2d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Waller v. Industrial Commission 431 P.2d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Waller v. Industrial Commission 431 P.2d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
O’ , ; , , .” The application of the doctrine in workmen’s , cited in Hoff, supra, , 115
Leiby v. Superior Court of Maricopa County 421 P.2d 874 Ariz. 1966
Leiby v. Superior Court of Maricopa County 421 P.2d 874 Ariz. 1966
Schwamm v. Superior Court in and for County of Pima 421 P.2d 913 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Schwamm v. Superior Court in and for County of Pima 421 P.2d 913 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
v. Hartford A. & I. Co.
Stuart v. Winslow Elementary School District No. 1 414 P.2d 976 Ariz. 1966
Stuart v. Winslow Elementary School District No. 1 414 P.2d 976 Ariz. 1966
In re Federal Water & Gas Corp., 3 Cir., 188 F.2d 100 , cert.
Secrist v. State 407 P.2d 781 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Secrist v. State 407 P.2d 781 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
It being denied, the State is bound by the determination regardless of its correctness: “Between the erroneous and the correct judgment there is no distinction with regard to their conclusiveness.”
In Re Milliman's Estate 406 P.2d 873 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
In Re Milliman's Estate 406 P.2d 873 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
In California, from whence most of our probate code derives ( , ), the sole remedy of the person victimized by the type of fraud present in this case would be to bring an equitable action against the defrauding parties benefiting from the fraud.
Kalkbrenner v. Anderson 405 P.2d 471 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965