DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Byrd v. Cieplak, 206 P.2d 732.

30 citing documents.

  • In Re Estate of Friedman 177 P.3d 290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
    See In re Wright’s Estate, , (ruling that the court will not award fees from an estate for services performed by an attorney not employed by the personal representative for services rendered to benefit an individual or group of individuals interested in the estate) (quoting In re Balke’s Estate, , ), disapproved of on other grounds by Marvin Johnson, P.C.
  • Circle K Convenience Stores, Inc. v. City of Phoenix 870 P.2d 1198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
  • Matter of Estate of Brown 670 P.2d 414 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
    The inception of the rule dates back to the case of , which squarely addressed the issue.
  • Burch & Cracchiolo, P.A. v. First National Bank 670 P.2d 414 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
    The inception of the rule dates back to the case of In re Balke’s Estate, , which squarely addressed the issue.
  • Matter of Estate of Wright 647 P.2d 1153 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
    We are mindful of the holding of In re Balke’s Estate, , that: “The general rule is that no allowance may be made out of the estate of a deceased person for the services of an attorney not employed by the personal representative of the estate, where the services were rendered for the sole benefit of an individual or group of individuals interested
  • Sanders v. Boyer 613 P.2d 1291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
    ed: “This rule [as stated in Colvin ] has been amplified in probate proceedings to provide that: ‘[N]o allowance may be made out of the estate of a deceased person for the services of an attorney not employed by the personal representative of the estate, where the services were rendered for the sole benefit of an individual or group of individuals interested in the estate.’ “In re Balke’s Estate
  • Matter of Estate of Balcomb 562 P.2d 399 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
    Since he must be considered a party aggrieved by a court order affecting the estate, In re Balke’s Estate, , In re Estate of McCabe, 11 Ariz.App.
  • Great Western Bank & Trust v. Myers 514 P.2d 463 Ariz. 1973
  • In Re Estate of O'Brien 502 P.2d 176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
    This rule has been amplified in probate proceedings to provide that: “ ‘[N]o allowance may be made out of the estate of a deceased person for the services of an attorney not employed by the personal representative of the estate, where the services were rendered for the sole benefit of an individual or group of individuals interested in the estate.’ ” In re Balke’s Estate
  • In Re Estate of Pfeffer 492 P.2d 27 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
  • In Re Estate of Appleton 489 P.2d 864 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • Valley National Bank v. Lewin 488 P.2d 671 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
    Nor do we consider that In re Balke’s Estate, , Podret v. Superior Court, supra, , relied upon by appellant, require a contrary result.
  • In Re Estate and Guardianship of Vermeersch 488 P.2d 671 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
    Nor do we consider that , Podret v. Superior Court, supra , , relied upon by appellant, require a contrary result.
  • Crosby v. Smith 475 P.2d 728 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
    34S P.2d 210, 215 (1959) ; In re Balke’s Estate
  • Valley National Bank v. Tamms 466 P.2d 774 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
  • In Re Estate of Wiswall 464 P.2d 634 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
    It has been held in In re Balke’s Estate, , , that it is beyond the power of the probate court to allow attorneys’ fees to attorneys other- than those employed by the executor.
  • Grand Canyon College v. Goms 461 P.2d 484 Ariz. 1969
    and In re Balke’s Estate, , are cited in support of the proposition that probate procedure is a creature of statute and therefore strictly regulated by statute.
  • Isaak v. Superior Court 443 P.2d 911 Ariz. 1968
    In re Balke’s Estate, , .
  • 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
  • In Re Estate of McConnell 421 P.2d 895 Ariz. 1966
    In , , the court was faced with the problem of the allowance of attorneys' fees to be paid from the estate, and said: "* * * Speaking generally, the rule is that attorneys' fees can be collected only when such fees are specifically allowed by statute or have been contracted for by the parties.
  • Glass v. Mackin 421 P.2d 895 Ariz. 1966
    In In re Balke’s Estate, , 206 ,P.2d 732, the court was faced with the problem of the allowance of attorneys’ fees to be paid from the estate, and said: “* * * Speaking generally, the rule is that attorneys’ fees can be collected only when such fees are specifically allowed by statute or have been contracted for by the parties.
  • Chemi-Cote Perlite Corp. v. Harborlite Corp. 419 P.2d 398 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
    In the instant action, we find no such “unique circumstances.” • Also, appellant cites In re Balke’s Estate
  • In Re Estate of Harber 409 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1965
    See, , Estate of Tamer, , 179 P. 643 (1919); In re Corotto, 125 Cal.
  • Colvin v. Superior Equipment Company 392 P.2d 778 Ariz. 1964
    In re Balke’s Estate, , .
  • Pintek v. Superior Court of Arizona 304 P.2d 392 Ariz. 1956
    While the facts are somewhat dissimilar, we believe the case of In re Balke’s Estate, , , is indistinguishable in principle with the instant case and that it effectively disposes of every contention made here by respondent.
  • UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN, ETC. v. Marchese 302 P.2d 930 Ariz. 1956
  • Podret v. Superior Court 294 P.2d 670 Ariz. 1956
    If it was without jurisdiction to create a trust under the circumstances and to appoint a trustee to hold and administer the same, Podret continues to hold said funds as executor and the rule laid down in In re Balke’s Estate, , , is controlling.
  • Byrd v. First National Bank 276 P.2d 527 Ariz. 1954
    In re Balke’s Estate, , .