§Why CasetextPricing

DUKE, ESTATE OF

Appellants’ Reply to Answer to Petition for Review

12 Cited authorities

  1. Pacific Gas E. Co. v. G.W. Thomas Drayage Etc. Co.

    69 Cal.2d 33 (Cal. 1968)   Cited 1,022 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the court erroneously refused to consider extrinsic evidence offered to prove the meaning of a provision to which it was reasonably susceptible

  2. LI v. Yellow Cab Co.

    13 Cal.3d 804 (Cal. 1975)   Cited 609 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding the “ ‘all-or-nothing’ ” common law doctrine of contributory negligence is superseded by a comparative negligence system that assigns liability for damage in direct proportion to the fault of each party

  3. Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc.

    59 Cal.2d 57 (Cal. 1963)   Cited 868 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding a manufacturer's liability should be imposed irrespective of fault

  4. Siebel v. Mittlesteadt

    41 Cal.4th 735 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 127 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that a lack of probable cause is one of the three elements of a state law malicious prosecution claim

  5. Estate of Russell

    69 Cal.2d 200 (Cal. 1968)   Cited 204 times
    Stating that in order to determine whether a written instrument is ambiguous or not, the court must examine the instrument in light of the circumstances surrounding its execution so as to ascertain what the parties meant by the words they used

  6. Crestview Cemetery Assn. v. Dieden

    54 Cal.2d 744 (Cal. 1960)   Cited 153 times
    Using the actions of the two parties, which disclosed their intent "with crystal clarity," to interpret an otherwise undocumented oral contract

  7. Estate of Dye

    92 Cal.App.4th 966 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 42 times

    C035887 Filed October 9, 2001 Certified for Publication Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Yuba County, CVPB99-0000069, Thomas F. Mathews, Judge. Affirmed. Baker, Manock Jensen, Kathleen A. Meehan and Pa Lai V. Lee For Petitioner and Appellant. Scott, Nichols Matteucci and Michael J. Matteucci for Objectors and Respondents. MORRISON, J. This case illustrates the danger of using preprinted wills. Decedent Haskell Dye had two natural sons who were adopted away (with his consent) by his

  8. Estate of Salmonski

    38 Cal.2d 199 (Cal. 1951)   Cited 58 times

    Docket No. Sac. 6088. December 19, 1951. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County determining heirship. Malcolm C. Glenn, Judge. Affirmed. Thomas W. Loris for Appellants. Busick Busick, Donald W. McMurchie and Charles M. Frey for Respondents. SPENCE, J. This is an appeal from a judgment determining heirship and interest in the estate of Wladyslaw Salmonski, deceased, upon proceedings instituted under the provisions of section 1080 of the Probate Code. The parties argue the

  9. Estate of Barnes

    63 Cal.2d 580 (Cal. 1965)   Cited 25 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Docket No. L.A. 27848. November 22, 1965. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County determining heirship. Clyde C. Triplett, Judge. Reversed. Reid, Babbage Coil and Horace O. Coil for Claimants and Appellants. Harmon D. Spanner for Petitioner and Respondent. BURKE, J. In this heirship proceeding, two of the heirs at law of decedent, Mrs. Barnes, appeal from an order determining that under the provisions of her will Robert Erle Henderson, a nephew named in the will, is entitled

  10. Saleen v. Aulman

    63 Cal.App.3d 319 (Cal. Ct. App. 1976)   Cited 9 times

    Docket No. 2975. November 3, 1976. Appeal from Superior Court of Merced County, No. 14217, Donald R. Fretz, Judge. COUNSEL Files, McMurchie, Foley Brandenburger and Stephen A. Brandenburger for Plaintiffs and Appellants. T.N. Petersen for Defendants and Respondents. OPINION FRANSON, J. — STATEMENT OF THE CASE The will of the decedent, Pearl Phyllis Taff, dated February 28, 1961, was admitted to probate, and Clarence Aulman was appointed executor. Thereafter appellants, all related to the decedent's