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 3 courts 1903–1958 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rench v. McMullengreen2 sentences1958(Rench v. McMullen, 82 Cal.App.2d 872, 874 [ 187 P.2d 111 ]; G. 1958(Rench v. McMullen, 82 Cal.App.2d 872, 874 [ 187 P.2d 111 ]; G. | 2 | 2 |
Olson v. Olsongreen2 sentences1950(Rench v. McMullen, 82 Cal.App.2d 872, 874 [ 187 P.2d 111 ] ; Olson v. Olson, 4 Cal.2d 434, 437-8 [ 49 P.2d 827 ].) However, the sufficiency of that evidence is primarily a question for the trial court to determine and if there is any substantial evidence to support its conclusion the determination is not open to review on appeal. 1950(Rench v. McMullen, 82 Cal.App.2d 872, 874 [ 187 P.2d 111 ] ; Olson v. Olson, 4 Cal.2d 434, 437-8 [ 49 P.2d 827 ].) However, the sufficiency of that evidence is primarily a question for the trial court to determine and if there is any substantial evidence to support its conclusion the determination is not open to review on appeal. | 2 | 2 |
Estate of Brauegreen2 sentences1946Her signature and those of the subscribing witnesses gave rise to the presumption of due execution (Estate of Pitcairn (1936), 6 Cal.2d 730, 732 [ 59 P.2d 90 ]; Estate of Braue (1941), 45 Cal.App.2d 502, 505 [ 114 P.2d 386 ]), and there was nothing in the evidence to overcome that presumption. 1946Her signature and those of the subscribing witnesses gave rise to the presumption of due execution (Estate of Pitcairn (1936), 6 Cal.2d 730, 732 [ 59 P.2d 90 ]; Estate of Braue (1941), 45 Cal.App.2d 502, 505 [ 114 P.2d 386 ]), and there was nothing in the evidence to overcome that presumption. | 2 | 2 |
Estate of Pitcairngreen2 sentences1946Her signature and those of the subscribing witnesses gave rise to the presumption of due execution (Estate of Pitcairn (1936), 6 Cal.2d 730, 732 [ 59 P.2d 90 ]; Estate of Braue (1941), 45 Cal.App.2d 502, 505 [ 114 P.2d 386 ]), and there was nothing in the evidence to overcome that presumption. 1946Her signature and those of the subscribing witnesses gave rise to the presumption of due execution (Estate of Pitcairn (1936), 6 Cal.2d 730, 732 [ 59 P.2d 90 ]; Estate of Braue (1941), 45 Cal.App.2d 502, 505 [ 114 P.2d 386 ]), and there was nothing in the evidence to overcome that presumption. | 2 | 2 |
Glasgow v. Andrewsgreen2 sentences1958(Glasgow v. Andrews, 129 Cal.App.2d 660, 664 [ 277 P.2d 400 ].) The evidence to overcome this presumption and establish that the property is held in trust must be clear and convincing. 1958(Glasgow v. Andrews, 129 Cal.App.2d 660, 664 [ 277 P.2d 400 ].) The evidence to overcome this presumption and establish that the property is held in trust must be clear and convincing. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Viner v. Untrecht
green
2 sentences1947(Viner v. Untrecht, 26 Cal.2d 261 [ 158 P.2d 3 ] and cases cited at p. 269.) However, the courts have frequently affirmed that there is a presumption that the holder of the legal title owns the full beneficial interest in the property and that the evidence to overcome this presumption and establish that the property is held in trust must be clear and convincing. 1947(Viner v. Untrecht, 26 Cal.2d 261 [ 158 P.2d 3 ] and cases cited at p. 269.) However, the courts have frequently affirmed that there is a presumption that the holder of the legal title owns the full beneficial interest in the property and that the evidence to overcome this presumption and establish that the property is held in trust must be clear and convincing. | 1 | 1947–1947 |
Barr v. Schroeder
green
1 sentence1923“In Branson v. Caruthers, 49 Cal. 374 , it was said: ‘The production of the deed of gift by the attorneys of the wife [the grantee] was sufficient evidence of its delivery and acceptance. ’ (Barr v. Schroeder, 32 Cal. 609 .) ” [3] If we not only disregard the testimony of the witnesses who were present at and participated in the delivery of the deed to the grantee and also disregard the declarations made from time to time by the grantor that he intended to deed the property to the grantee and that he had deeded the property to the grantee, what have we left in the evidence to overcome the pres | 1 | 1923–1923 |
Branson v. Caruthers
neutral
1 sentence1923“In Branson v. Caruthers, 49 Cal. 374 , it was said: ‘The production of the deed of gift by the attorneys of the wife [the grantee] was sufficient evidence of its delivery and acceptance. ’ (Barr v. Schroeder, 32 Cal. 609 .) ” [3] If we not only disregard the testimony of the witnesses who were present at and participated in the delivery of the deed to the grantee and also disregard the declarations made from time to time by the grantor that he intended to deed the property to the grantee and that he had deeded the property to the grantee, what have we left in the evidence to overcome the pres | 1 | 1923–1923 |
Scheuer v. State
green
1 sentence1903So, also, it is said that the evidence to overcome the presumption that a lost will was destroyed by the testator animo revocandi must be clear, satisfactory and convincing: In re Colbert’s Estate, 31 Mont. 461 , 107 Am. | 1 | 1903–1903 |
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.