Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite In Re Estate of McCauley, 415 P.2d 431.

65 citing documents.

Dominguez v. rowland/vandermeer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
¶ 26 (2023) (quoting In re McCauley’s Est., –11 (1966)).
Gonzalez v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
See In re McCauley’s Estate, (discussing analogous Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 15(b)).
Smith v. Afc Gamma Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Smith v. Afc Gamma Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
ties’ express or implied consent, it must be treated in all respects as if it had been raised in the pleadings.” ¶ 51 (App. 2013) (affirming Rule 15(b) automatically amends pleadings to conform to the evidence and to raise additional issues when such issues are tried by the parties’ express or implied consent); accord In re McCauley’s Estate
In Re Adoption of H.A. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
In Re Adoption of H.A. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Anonymous, 23 Ariz. App. at 51–52 (duress); In re McCauley’s Estate, (undue influence).
Rosenberg v. Sanders 539 P.3d 120 Ariz. 2023
Rosenberg v. Sanders 539 P.3d 120 Ariz. 2023
In re Estate of McCauley (“McCauley”), –11 (1966).
Bates v. Bates Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Bates v. Bates Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
B. In re Estate of McCauley ¶30 The parties devote considerable time and space to the relevance of
Larmer v. Larmer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Larmer v. Larmer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
In re McCauley’s Estate, - 11, -34 (1966) (citation omitted).
Kimball v. Perkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Koma v. Walter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Koma v. Walter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-11 (1966) (citations omitted).
Williams v. Cole Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Williams v. Cole Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
WILLIAMS v. COLE Decision of the Court ¶8 Undue influence occurs if “a person unduly influences a testator or testatrix in executing a will when that person through his power over the mind of the testator or testatrix makes the latter’s desires conform to his own, thereby overmastering the volition of testator or testatrix.”
Parker, Springer Jr., Anderson v. Committee for Sustainable Retirement in Support of Initiative 314 P.3d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Parker, Springer Jr., Anderson v. Committee for Sustainable Retirement in Support of Initiative 314 P.3d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
“Failure to object to the introduction of evidence on the ground that it is not within the issues is sufficient to imply consent to try such issues.”
Andrew Mullin v. Brown Chapa Fields Linden Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Andrew Mullin v. Brown Chapa Fields Linden Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
(“[M]arital relationship existing between testatrix and proponent is not one of the confidential relationships giving rise to the presumption of undue influence.
In Re Estate of Shumway 3 P.3d 977 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
In Re Estate of Shumway 3 P.3d 977 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
-11 , , 433-34 *983 (1966).
Rodriguez v. Gavette 3 P.3d 977 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Rodriguez v. Gavette 3 P.3d 977 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
z made any fraudulent representations to Shumway, (4) whether the will’s execution was concealed from interested parties, (5) whether the will was consistent with Shumway’s prior declarations, (6) whether Shumway was susceptible to undue influence, and (7) whether the will was “reasonable rather than unnatural in view of [Shumway’s] circumstances, attitudes, and family.” -11 , -34 *63 (1966).
Bujanda v. Montgomery Ward & Co. 609 P.2d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Bujanda v. Montgomery Ward & Co. 609 P.2d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
It is true that in the case of , the court stated that: “(r)ule 15(b), Rules of Civil Procedure, provides for an automatic amendment of pleadings .
Evans v. Liston 568 P.2d 1116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Evans v. Liston 568 P.2d 1116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
In re Estate of Frick, 13 Ariz.App.
Wallin v. SCOTTSDALE PLUMBING COMPANY, INC. 557 P.2d 190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Wallin v. SCOTTSDALE PLUMBING COMPANY, INC. 557 P.2d 190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Parrisella v. Fotopulos 522 P.2d 1081 Ariz. 1974
Parrisella v. Fotopulos 522 P.2d 1081 Ariz. 1974
Valley National Bank v. Lewin 506 P.2d 256 Ariz. 1973
Valley National Bank v. Lewin 506 P.2d 256 Ariz. 1973
Panagiotis v. Miltiades 497 P.2d 77 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Panagiotis v. Miltiades 497 P.2d 77 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
hat: “Where the contestant has presented evidence from which a reasonable person could conclude that the person charged with exerting undue influence had a disposition to exercise such influence, that he had an opportunity to exercise undue influence, that some influence was exerted, and that the will seems to result from such influence, a question of fact is presented.”
Miller v. Western Farms Investment Co. 492 P.2d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Miller v. Western Farms Investment Co. 492 P.2d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
In the case of , we find the following discussion of undue influence: “The basic concept emerging from the mass of decisions on the subject of undue influence is that a person unduly influences a testator or testatrix in executing a will when that person through his power over the mind of the testator or testatr
Continental National Bank v. Evans 489 P.2d 15 Ariz. 1971
Continental National Bank v. Evans 489 P.2d 15 Ariz. 1971
Barker v. James 486 P.2d 195 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Barker v. James 486 P.2d 195 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
The Supreme Court restated the foregoing interpretation of Rule 15(b) and expanded upon its purpose and intent in the case of
Greene v. Reed 486 P.2d 222 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Greene v. Reed 486 P.2d 222 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
In Re Estate of Frick 475 P.2d 732 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Fahringer v. Pierce 475 P.2d 732 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
In Re Estate of Frick 475 P.2d 732 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Fahringer v. Pierce 475 P.2d 732 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Blakeway v. Texas Business Investments Co. 470 P.2d 710 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970