Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Virginia opinions name it 2 courts 1947–2023 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Virginia courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Keener v. Keenergreen2 sentences2023Yourko v. Yourko, 74 Va. App. 80 , 87 (2021). -5- Whether a beneficiary has triggered a no contest clause in a will is “a mixed question of law and fact. ‘What activity or participation constitutes a contest or attempt to defeat a will depends upon the wording of the “no contest” provision and the facts and circumstances of each particular case.’” Keener v. Keener, 278 Va. 435, 441 (2009) (quoting Womble v. Gunter, 198 Va. 522, 529 (1956)). 2023A. Standards of Review Whether a beneficiary has triggered a trust’s no contest clause presents “a mixed question of law and fact.” Rafalko v. Georgiadis, 290 Va. 384, 401 (2015) (quoting Keener v. Keener, 278 Va. 435, 441 (2009)). | 2 | 3 |
Womble v. Guntergreen2 sentences2023Yourko v. Yourko, 74 Va. App. 80 , 87 (2021). -5- Whether a beneficiary has triggered a no contest clause in a will is “a mixed question of law and fact. ‘What activity or participation constitutes a contest or attempt to defeat a will depends upon the wording of the “no contest” provision and the facts and circumstances of each particular case.’” Keener v. Keener, 278 Va. 435, 441 (2009) (quoting Womble v. Gunter, 198 Va. 522, 529 (1956)). 2023“What activity or participation constitutes a contest or attempt to defeat a [trust] depends upon the wording of the ‘no contest’ provision and the facts and circumstances of each particular case.” Keener, 278 Va. at 441 (quoting Womble v. Gunter, 198 Va. 522, 529 (1956)). | 2 | 2 |
Rafalko v. Georgiadisgreen1 sentence2023A. Standards of Review Whether a beneficiary has triggered a trust’s no contest clause presents “a mixed question of law and fact.” Rafalko v. Georgiadis, 290 Va. 384, 401 (2015) (quoting Keener v. Keener, 278 Va. 435, 441 (2009)). | 1 | 1 |
Goldie Lavine v. Philip A. Shapirogreen2 sentences2015See Lavine v. Shapiro, 257 F.2d 14 , 19 (7th Cir.1958) ("Plaintiff ... had a right to express her feeling of hostility as well as her opinion of defendant in any way, at any place, at any time she saw fit, without being vulnerable to the charge that she directly or indirectly aided in the contest of the will."); Estate of Wojtalewicz v. Woitel, 93 Ill.App.3d 1061 , 49 Ill.Dec. 564 , 418 N.E.2d 418 , 421 (1981) (allowing a legatee a "right to express a feeling of hostility toward and an opinion of the executor [as] he sees fit" without forfeiting his interests). 2015See Lavine v. Shapiro, 257 F.2d 14, 19 (7th Cir. 1958) (“Plaintiff . . . had a right to express her feeling of hostility as well as her opinion of defendant in any way, at any place, at any time she saw fit, without being vulnerable to the charge that she directly or indirectly aided in the contest of the will.”); Estate of Wojtalewicz v. Woitel, 418 N.E.2d 418, 421 (Ill. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Estate of Wojtalewiczgreen2 sentences2015See Lavine v. Shapiro, 257 F.2d 14 , 19 (7th Cir.1958) ("Plaintiff ... had a right to express her feeling of hostility as well as her opinion of defendant in any way, at any place, at any time she saw fit, without being vulnerable to the charge that she directly or indirectly aided in the contest of the will."); Estate of Wojtalewicz v. Woitel, 93 Ill.App.3d 1061 , 49 Ill.Dec. 564 , 418 N.E.2d 418 , 421 (1981) (allowing a legatee a "right to express a feeling of hostility toward and an opinion of the executor [as] he sees fit" without forfeiting his interests). 2015See Lavine v. Shapiro, 257 F.2d 14 , 19 (7th Cir.1958) ("Plaintiff ... had a right to express her feeling of hostility as well as her opinion of defendant in any way, at any place, at any time she saw fit, without being vulnerable to the charge that she directly or indirectly aided in the contest of the will."); Estate of Wojtalewicz v. Woitel, 93 Ill.App.3d 1061 , 49 Ill.Dec. 564 , 418 N.E.2d 418 , 421 (1981) (allowing a legatee a "right to express a feeling of hostility toward and an opinion of the executor [as] he sees fit" without forfeiting his interests). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Virginia Foundation of Independent Colleges v. Goodrich
green
1 sentence2020Count I of Chip’s complaint closely followed the Goodrich template for seeking a preliminary determination on the scope of the no-contest provision in the Theresa Trust prior to a resolution of the disputed meaning of the inform-and-report waiver provision: Notwithstanding anything that may be contained in this Complaint to the contrary, this Complaint seeks no further relief than that which has been held by the Virginia Supreme Court in Virginia Foundation of Independent Colleges v. Goodrich, 246 Va. 435 (1993), to permit a beneficiary to file a declaratory judgment action seeking an interpre | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Keely v. Moore
green
2 sentences1947It was held, in Keely v. Moore, 196 U. S. 38 , 25 S. Ct. 169 , 49 L. 1947It was held, in Keely v. Moore, 196 U. S. 38 , 25 S. Ct. 169 , 49 L. | 1 | 1947–1947 |
Lewandowski v. Zuzak
green
2 sentences1947In Lewandowski v. Zuzak, 305 Ill. 612 , 137 N. E. 500 , it was held that the issue in a proceeding to commit a party to the insane asylum was not the same as the issue in a contest to test the validity of the will, and that evidence introduced in one case was not admissible in the other. 1947In Lewandowski v. Zuzak, 305 Ill. 612 , 137 N. E. 500 , it was held that the issue in a proceeding to commit a party to the insane asylum was not the same as the issue in a contest to test the validity of the will, and that evidence introduced in one case was not admissible in the other. | 1 | 1947–1947 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.