§Why CasetextPricing

In the Matter of H. Kenneth Ranftle,, Deceased. <br />---------------------------------<br /> Ronald J. Ranftle, Appellant, J. Craig Leiby, Respondent.

Brief

10 Cited authorities

  1. United States v. Windsor

    570 U.S. 744 (2013)   Cited 674 times   92 Legal Analyses
    Holding unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment a federal law recognizing opposite-sex-sex but not same-sex marriages because its "principal purpose [was] to impose inequality, not for other reasons like governmental efficiency"

  2. Thoreson v. Penthouse Intl

    80 N.Y.2d 490 (N.Y. 1992)   Cited 424 times
    Relying on expressio unius, statutory language, and legislative history to foreclose expansion of listed damages remedies

  3. Windsor v. United States

    699 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 2012)   Cited 183 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Baker was not controlling as to constitutionality of DOMA, reasoning in part that “[i]n the forty years after Baker, there have been manifold changes to the Supreme Court's equal protection jurisprudence” that would warrant an exception to the general rule

  4. Cannon v. Putnam

    76 N.Y.2d 644 (N.Y. 1990)   Cited 181 times
    In Cannon, "the defendant decided to have a free standing floodlight installed on his property to illuminate his front yard and its two artificial ponds."

  5. Matter of Rothko

    43 N.Y.2d 305 (N.Y. 1977)   Cited 237 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that where it is impossible to appraise damages with certainty, the Surrogate "had the right to resort to reasonable conjectures and probable estimates and to make the best approximation possible through the exercise of good judgment and common sense in arriving at that amount"

  6. In re Kenneth Ranftle

    81 A.D.3d 566 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)   Cited 7 times

    No. 4214. February 24, 2011. Order, Surrogate's Court, New York County (Kristen Booth Glen, S.), entered on or about July 27, 2010, which denied appellant's petition to vacate the probate of his brother's will, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Alexander M. Dudelson, Brooklyn, for appellant. Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., New York (Susan L. Sommer of counsel), for respondent. Kramer Levin Naftalis Frankel LLP, New York (Eve Preminger of counsel), for The New York City Bar Association

  7. Ranftle v. Leiby (In re Ranftle)

    108 A.D.3d 437 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)

    2013-07-2 In re H. Kenneth RANFTLE, etc., Deceased. Ronald J. Ranftle, Petitioner–Appellant, J. Craig Leiby., Respondent–Respondent. Greenberg & Wilner, LLP, New York (Harvey L. Greenberg of counsel), for appellant. Weiss, Buell & Bell, New York (Erica Bell of counsel), for respondent. SWEENY Greenberg & Wilner, LLP, New York (Harvey L. Greenberg of counsel), for appellant. Weiss, Buell & Bell, New York (Erica Bell of counsel), for respondent. SWEENY, J.P., SAXE, RENWICK, FREEDMAN, JJ. Order, Surrogate's

  8. Matter of Shapiro

    36 Misc. 2d 271 (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 1962)   Cited 7 times

    July 12, 1962 Paul L. Bleakley for petitioner. Bandler Kass ( Julius Kass of counsel), for objectant. HARRY G. HERMAN, S. In this probate proceeding, the eldest daughter of decedent, has filed objections to the probate of the will dated April 22, 1958. The objections raise an issue as to the domicile of the decedent and the court tried as a preliminary issue the question as to whether decedent at the time of her death in November, 1961, was domiciled in Miami Beach, Florida, or in New Rochelle, New

  9. Section 741.212 - Marriages between persons of the same sex

    Fla. Stat. § 741.212   Cited 31 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting marriages or the recognition of marriages between persons of the same sex

  10. Section 500.11 - Alternative procedure for selected appeals

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22 § 500.11   Cited 539 times

    (a) On its own motion, the court may review selected appeals by an alternative procedure. Such appeals shall be determined on the intermediate appellate court record or appendix and briefs, the writings in the courts below and additional letter submissions on the merits. The clerk of the court shall notify all parties by letter when an appeal has been selected for review pursuant to this section. Appellant may request such review in its preliminary appeal statement. Respondent may request such review