Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite In Re Estate of Harber, 428 P.2d 662.

30 citing documents.

Rosenberg v. Sanders 539 P.3d 120 Ariz. 2023
Rosenberg v. Sanders 539 P.3d 120 Ariz. 2023
–92 (1967) (emphasis added); see also In re Vermeersch’s Estate, (“This court .
State v. Gomez-Torres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Gomez-Torres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
In re Harber’s Estate, ¶ 19 (App. 2013).
State of Arizona v. Ronald Vassell 359 P.3d 1025 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Ronald Vassell 359 P.3d 1025 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
Cf. In re Harber’s Estate
Williams v. Cole Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Williams v. Cole Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
In Estate of Harber, after noting that it was necessary “to introduce sufficient evidence to show that the testatrix’ will was 4 Cathy claims that our supreme court expressly rejected a “point-in-time” analysis, and quotes the following in her opening brief: To require that there be direct evidence of undue influence operating on the testatrix’s mind at the time she executes her will is contrary to both the law and common sense
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
P.2d 662 (1967) (collecting cases in which active preparation or procurement of will was found when beneficiary had submitted contents of will to preparer or provided terms to attorney drafting will).
Estate of Shumway v. Gavette 9 P.3d 1062 Ariz. 2000
Estate of Shumway v. Gavette 9 P.3d 1062 Ariz. 2000
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 Thompson, 1 Ariz.App.
Performance Systems, Inc. v. Kahl 536 P.2d 213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Performance Systems, Inc. v. Kahl 536 P.2d 213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Gallegos v. Garcia 480 P.2d 1002 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Gallegos v. Garcia 480 P.2d 1002 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
Grand Canyon College v. Goms 461 P.2d 484 Ariz. 1969
Grand Canyon College v. Goms 461 P.2d 484 Ariz. 1969
Moore Drug Company v. Schaneman 461 P.2d 95 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Moore Drug Company v. Schaneman 461 P.2d 95 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 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
In connection with a will, the latest pronouncement, as to the nature of undue influence, is: “It is necessary for the contestants to introduce sufficient evidence to show that the testatrix’ will was overpowered and the will of another substituted in its stead, in order for a jury to find that the will was a product of undue influence.”