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.
7 California opinions name it 2 courts 1935–1986 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bales v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1949(Bales v. Superior Court, 21 Cal.2d 17, 21 [ 129 P.2d 685 ].) Section 1080 declares: "When the time to file or present claims against the estate has expired, but the estate is not in a condition to be closed, any person claiming to be an heir of the decedent or entitled to distribution of the estate or any part thereof may file a petition setting forth his claim and praying that the court determine who are entitled to distribution of the estate. 1949(Bales v. Superior Court, 21 Cal.2d 17, 21 [ 129 P.2d 685 ].) Section 1080 declares: "When the time to file or present claims against the estate has expired, but the estate is not in a condition to be closed, any person claiming to be an heir of the decedent or entitled to distribution of the estate or any part thereof may file a petition setting forth his claim and praying that the court determine who are entitled to distribution of the estate. | 4 | 4 |
Smith v. Westerfieldgreen2 sentences1986(See Smith v. Westerfield (1891) 88 Cal. 374, 380 [ 26 P. 206 ].) Before 1949, section 1080 read, in relevant part: “When the time to file or present claims against the estate has expired, but the estate is not in a condition to be closed, any person claiming to be an heir of the decedent or entitled to distribution of the estate or any part thereof may file a petition setting forth his claim and praying that the court determine who are entitled to distribution of the estate. 1986(See Smith v. Westerfield (1891) 88 Cal. 374, 380 [ 26 P. 206 ].) Before 1949, section 1080 read, in relevant part: “When the time to file or present claims against the estate has expired, but the estate is not in a condition to be closed, any person claiming to be an heir of the decedent or entitled to distribution of the estate or any part thereof may file a petition setting forth his claim and praying that the court determine who are entitled to distribution of the estate. | 3 | 3 |
McPike v. Superior Court of S.F.green2 sentences1955(Smith v. Westerfield, 88 Cal. 374, 379 [ 26 P. 206 ].) ” (Estate of Strong, 119 Cal. 663, 666-667 [ 51 P. 1078 ] ; see, also, McPike v. Superior Court, 220 Cal. 254, 258 [ 30 P.2d 17 ] ; Bales v. Superior Court, 21 Cal.2d 17, 24 [ 129 P.2d 685 ]; 13 Cal.Jur.2d § 10, p. 463.) In view of these basic principles, the attorney general cannot prevail in his claim that he is authorized by statute to initiate the heirship proceeding. 1955(Smith v. Westerfield, 88 Cal. 374, 379 [ 26 P. 206 ].) ” (Estate of Strong, 119 Cal. 663, 666-667 [ 51 P. 1078 ] ; see, also, McPike v. Superior Court, 220 Cal. 254, 258 [ 30 P.2d 17 ] ; Bales v. Superior Court, 21 Cal.2d 17, 24 [ 129 P.2d 685 ]; 13 Cal.Jur.2d § 10, p. 463.) In view of these basic principles, the attorney general cannot prevail in his claim that he is authorized by statute to initiate the heirship proceeding. | 2 | 2 |
Fowler v. Millergreen2 sentences1955(Smith v. Westerfield, 88 Cal. 374, 379 [ 26 P. 206 ].)" (Estate of Strong, 119 Cal. 663, 666-667 [ 51 P. 1078 ]; see, also, McPike v. Superior Court, 220 Cal. 254, 258 [ 30 P.2d 17 ]; Bales v. Superior Court, 21 Cal.2d 17, 24 [ 129 P.2d 685 ]; 13 Cal.Jur.2d 10, p. 463.) [2] In view of these basic principles, the attorney general cannot prevail in his claim that he is authorized by statute to initiate the heirship proceeding. 1955(Smith v. Westerfield, 88 Cal. 374, 379 [ 26 P. 206 ].) ” (Estate of Strong, 119 Cal. 663, 666-667 [ 51 P. 1078 ] ; see, also, McPike v. Superior Court, 220 Cal. 254, 258 [ 30 P.2d 17 ] ; Bales v. Superior Court, 21 Cal.2d 17, 24 [ 129 P.2d 685 ]; 13 Cal.Jur.2d § 10, p. 463.) In view of these basic principles, the attorney general cannot prevail in his claim that he is authorized by statute to initiate the heirship proceeding. | 2 | 2 |
Central Bank v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1959(Central Bank v. Superior Court (1955), 45 Cal.2d 10, 14 [ 285 P.2d 906 ] ; Estate of Dabney (1951), 37 Cal.2d 672, 676 [ 234 P.2d 962 ] ; Bauer v. Bauer (1927), 201 Cal. 267, 271 [ 256 P. 820 ].) Probate Code, section 1080, provides in part that “the executor or administrator, or any person claiming to be an heir *536 of the decedent or entitled to distribution of the estate or any part thereof may file a petition setting forth his claim or reason and praying that the court determine who are entitled to distribution of the estate.” Appellant contends that the probate court has jurisdiction he 1959(Central Bank v. Superior Court (1955), 45 Cal.2d 10, 14 [ 285 P.2d 906 ] ; Estate of Dabney (1951), 37 Cal.2d 672, 676 [ 234 P.2d 962 ] ; Bauer v. Bauer (1927), 201 Cal. 267, 271 [ 256 P. 820 ].) Probate Code, section 1080, provides in part that “the executor or administrator, or any person claiming to be an heir *536 of the decedent or entitled to distribution of the estate or any part thereof may file a petition setting forth his claim or reason and praying that the court determine who are entitled to distribution of the estate.” Appellant contends that the probate court has jurisdiction he | 1 | 1 |
Bauer v. Bauergreen2 sentences1959(Central Bank v. Superior Court (1955), 45 Cal.2d 10, 14 [ 285 P.2d 906 ] ; Estate of Dabney (1951), 37 Cal.2d 672, 676 [ 234 P.2d 962 ] ; Bauer v. Bauer (1927), 201 Cal. 267, 271 [ 256 P. 820 ].) Probate Code, section 1080, provides in part that “the executor or administrator, or any person claiming to be an heir *536 of the decedent or entitled to distribution of the estate or any part thereof may file a petition setting forth his claim or reason and praying that the court determine who are entitled to distribution of the estate.” Appellant contends that the probate court has jurisdiction he 1959(Central Bank v. Superior Court (1955), 45 Cal.2d 10, 14 [ 285 P.2d 906 ] ; Estate of Dabney (1951), 37 Cal.2d 672, 676 [ 234 P.2d 962 ] ; Bauer v. Bauer (1927), 201 Cal. 267, 271 [ 256 P. 820 ].) Probate Code, section 1080, provides in part that “the executor or administrator, or any person claiming to be an heir *536 of the decedent or entitled to distribution of the estate or any part thereof may file a petition setting forth his claim or reason and praying that the court determine who are entitled to distribution of the estate.” Appellant contends that the probate court has jurisdiction he | 1 | 1 |
Dabney v. Philleogreen2 sentences1959(Central Bank v. Superior Court (1955), 45 Cal.2d 10, 14 [ 285 P.2d 906 ] ; Estate of Dabney (1951), 37 Cal.2d 672, 676 [ 234 P.2d 962 ] ; Bauer v. Bauer (1927), 201 Cal. 267, 271 [ 256 P. 820 ].) Probate Code, section 1080, provides in part that “the executor or administrator, or any person claiming to be an heir *536 of the decedent or entitled to distribution of the estate or any part thereof may file a petition setting forth his claim or reason and praying that the court determine who are entitled to distribution of the estate.” Appellant contends that the probate court has jurisdiction he 1959(Central Bank v. Superior Court (1955), 45 Cal.2d 10, 14 [ 285 P.2d 906 ] ; Estate of Dabney (1951), 37 Cal.2d 672, 676 [ 234 P.2d 962 ] ; Bauer v. Bauer (1927), 201 Cal. 267, 271 [ 256 P. 820 ].) Probate Code, section 1080, provides in part that “the executor or administrator, or any person claiming to be an heir *536 of the decedent or entitled to distribution of the estate or any part thereof may file a petition setting forth his claim or reason and praying that the court determine who are entitled to distribution of the estate.” Appellant contends that the probate court has jurisdiction he | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1935(Johnson v. Superior Court, 102 Cal. App. 178, 185 [ 283 Pac. 331 ].) It has long been the rule that the jurisdiction given to the probate court is limited “to the ascertainment and determination of rights and interests claimed in privity with the estates, and is not applicable to rights or titles claimed adversely to such estates”. 1935(Johnson v. Superior Court, 102 Cal. App. 178, 185 [ 283 Pac. 331 ].) It has long been the rule that the jurisdiction given to the probate court is limited “to the ascertainment and determination of rights and interests claimed in privity with the estates, and is not applicable to rights or titles claimed adversely to such estates”. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.