Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite In Re Pitt's Estate, 356 P.2d 408.

36 citing documents.

Rosenberg v. Sanders 539 P.3d 120 Ariz. 2023
Rosenberg v. Sanders 539 P.3d 120 Ariz. 2023
In re Pitt’s Estate, –18 (1960).
Hudgins v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES, CO. 212 P.3d 810 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Hudgins v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES, CO. 212 P.3d 810 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
“Reversal is required when a jury’s verdict ‘is supported by nothing beyond speculation, suspicion and bottomless inference.’ ” ¶ 34 , (quoting In re Pitt’s Estate, , ).
Acuna v. Hampton And Kroack Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Acuna v. Hampton And Kroack Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Reversal is required when a jury’s verdict “is supported by nothing beyond speculation, suspicion and bottomless inference.” In re Pitt’s Estate, see also Preuss, 130 Ariz. at 290, 635 P.2d at 1212.
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
Estate of Harber (recognizing that presumption shifts only burden of production and not burden of persuasion); (legal presumption of undue influence “‘dissolved’” on denial by one presumed to have exerted undue influence “‘even if neither the judge nor the jury believed the denial to be true’”), quoting O’Connor’s Estate, 74 Ariz. at 260, 246 P.2d at 1071.
Estate of Shumway v. Gavette 9 P.3d 1062 Ariz. 2000
Estate of Shumway v. Gavette 9 P.3d 1062 Ariz. 2000
In re O’Connor’s Estate, -60
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, supra.
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
Kovrig v. Vasquez 456 P.2d 947 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Kovrig v. Vasquez 456 P.2d 947 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
See also In re O’Conner’s Estate, , In re Pitt’s Estate
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 re O’Connor’s Estate, , In re Pitt’s Estate
Oana v. Haskell 441 P.2d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Oana v. Haskell 441 P.2d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
The same may be said of In re Pitt’s Estate, , a subsequent decision following O’Connor.
Moore v. Holbrook 433 P.2d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Moore v. Holbrook 433 P.2d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
In Re Pitt’s Estate, , ” In Re Thompson’s Estate, 1 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 McCauley 415 P.2d 431 Ariz. 1966
In Re Estate of McCauley 415 P.2d 431 Ariz. 1966
Kalkbrenner v. Anderson 405 P.2d 471 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Kalkbrenner v. Anderson 405 P.2d 471 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
“The judgment of the lower court is reversed, and the case remanded with instructions to admit the will to probate.” In re Pitt’s Estate
Bass v. Renaud 398 P.2d 926 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
In Re Thompson's Estate 398 P.2d 926 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
In Re Thompson's Estate 398 P.2d 926 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Bass v. Renaud 398 P.2d 926 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by