§Why CasetextPricing

In the Matter of the Estate of Robyn R. Lewis, Deceased. James Robert Simmons, Respondent; Meredith M. Stewart, et al., Appellants.

Brief

41 Cited authorities

  1. Professional Park v. Bedford

    60 N.Y.2d 492 (N.Y. 1983)   Cited 1,156 times
    In Northern Westchester Professional Park Assocs. v Town of Bedford (60 N.Y.2d 492) the Court of Appeals found that in determining whether a certain zoning regulation permitted a reasonable rate of return, a petitioner must show proof in dollars and cents of the owner's investment in the property as well as the return that the property would produce from the various uses permissible under the existing classification.

  2. Hecht Co. v. Bowles

    321 U.S. 321 (1944)   Cited 973 times
    Holding no clear intent to strip traditional discretion in statute that provided that an injunction or other order "shall be granted" "upon a showing ... that [the defendant] has engaged or is about to engage in [prohibited] acts or practices"

  3. Majauskas v. Majauskas

    61 N.Y.2d 481 (N.Y. 1984)   Cited 587 times
    Holding that vested rights in a noncontributory pension plan are marital property to the extent they were acquired between the date of marriage and commencement of a matrimonial action

  4. People v. Patterson

    39 N.Y.2d 288 (N.Y. 1976)   Cited 433 times
    In Patterson the Court did not even mention Mullaney until after it had concluded that the issue on the merits was within the special category that always deserves review despite the absence of contemporaneous objection.

  5. Matter of Fabbri

    2 N.Y.2d 236 (N.Y. 1957)   Cited 356 times
    In Matter of Fabbri (2 N.Y.2d 236, 239 [1957]) the court stated: "At the time of his death testator was domiciled in Maine and, since no contrary intent appears in the will, the law of that State determines the validity and effect of the will with respect to the disposition of personal property (1 Davids on New York Law of Wills, § 452; Decedent Estate Law, § 47; Matter of Gifford, 279 N.Y. 470, 474-475)."

  6. Mercury Bay v. San Diego

    76 N.Y.2d 256 (N.Y. 1990)   Cited 131 times
    In Mercury Bay Boating Club v San Diego YachtClub (76 NY2d 256), we strictly construed the provisions of the trust instrument, the Deed of Gift, to allow multihulled vessels to compete in the America's Cup race.

  7. Matter of Bieley

    91 N.Y.2d 520 (N.Y. 1998)   Cited 53 times
    Referring to well-established axiom of testamentary construction that the testator is presumed to have intended to dispose of the whole estate by will, and did not intend intestacy as to any part of it

  8. Telaro v. Telaro

    25 N.Y.2d 433 (N.Y. 1969)   Cited 122 times

    Argued October 28, 1969 Decided December 4, 1969 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, FREDERICK BACKER, J. Leonard C. Shalleck, Irving I. Erdheim and Milton P. Falk for appellant. Morris H. Halpern and Abraham J. Heller for respondent. BREITEL, J. This appeal involves an action by a wife to recover, inter alia, one half of some $24,800 withdrawn by her husband, defendant-respondent, from a brokerage account held at that time in the names of both

  9. In re Singer

    2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 9265 (N.Y. 2009)   Cited 28 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding testator's son did not violate no-contest clause by deposing father's estate lawyer because deposition did not contest, object to, or oppose estate plan

  10. Alliance Prop. Mgmt. and Dev. v. Andrews Ave. Equities

    70 N.Y.2d 831 (N.Y. 1987)   Cited 63 times

    Argued November 9, 1987 Decided November 17, 1987 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, Bertram Katz, J. Peter L. Zimroth, Corporation Counsel (Fay S. Ng, Pamela Seider Dolgow and Angelo Aiosa of counsel), for appellant. Stuart M. Fischman, Michael Stepper and Paul Beck for respondent. MEMORANDUM. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs. In this mortgage foreclosure action brought by plaintiff (to which the City was a

  11. Section 6.001 - Insupportability

    Tex. Fam. Code § 6.001   Cited 73 times
    Recognizing insupportability as ground for dissolution of marriage

  12. Section 69 - [Repealed]

    Tex. Prob. Code § 69   Cited 13 times

    Tex. Prob. Code § 69 Repealed by Acts 2009, Acts of the 81st Leg., ch. 680,Sec. 10, eff. 1/1/2014. Amended By Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1170, Sec. 4.02, eff. September 1, 2007. Amended by Acts 1979, 66th Leg., p. 1746, ch. 713, Sec. 12, eff. Aug. 27, 1979; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 642, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1995; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1302, Sec. 5, eff. Sept. 1, 1997. Acts 1955, 54th Leg., p. 88, ch. 55, eff. Jan. 1, 1956.