DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

65 citing documents.

  • Blakeway v. Texas Business Investments Co. 470 P.2d 710 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
    A case cited by plaintiff in support of the trial court’s allowing the amendment, , is not in point here since appellant’s objections were clearly to the effect that the objectionable testimony was not within the issues framed by the pleadings and since he has more than adequately shown his resulting prejudice.
  • Douglas Investment Co. v. Van Ness 468 P.2d 568 Ariz. 1970
  • Douglas Investment Co. v. Van Ness 468 P.2d 568 Ariz. 1970
    A similar situation arose in , , wherein this Court said: “Proponent urges that the trial court’s order granting this motion to amend was erroneous.
  • O'BRIEN v. Superior Court in and for Maricopa County 457 P.2d 265 Ariz. 1969
  • O'BRIEN v. Superior Court in and for Maricopa County 457 P.2d 265 Ariz. 1969
  • In Re Estate of Sherer 455 P.2d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
  • In Re Estate of Sherer 455 P.2d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
    See In re O’Connor’s Estate, , In re Pitt’s Estate
  • Brewer v. Peterson 453 P.2d 966 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
  • Brewer v. Peterson 453 P.2d 966 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
    ts effectuating these transfers to be prepared, that Mrs. MacDonald was elderly and in poor health, that the nephew managed the River Ranch for her, that he secured no independent legal advice for her in connection with these transfers, and that he told members of the family, after her death, that “ T wished I had have had her deed it all to me while I was at it.’” 3 -11 , -434 (1966).
  • Meyer v. Warner 448 P.2d 394 Ariz. 1968
  • Meyer v. Warner 448 P.2d 394 Ariz. 1968
    * * *” See also, , ; O’Malley Investment and Realty Co. v. Trimble, 5 Ariz.App.
  • In Re Estate of Harber 428 P.2d 662 Ariz. 1967
  • In Re Estate of Harber 428 P.2d 662 Ariz. 1967
    In later cases the Court stated that the relationship involved in creating the presumption was “confidential.”
  • In Re Estate of Trigg 414 P.2d 988 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
  • In Re Estate of Trigg 414 P.2d 988 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
    In re: Estate of Bond Sneed McCauley 100 Ariz.-, (decided by Arizona Supreme Court May 11, 1966), Lehman v. Whitehead, 1 Ariz.App.