California Supreme Court· 3/20/1941
Cook v. Cook
Citations
- 17 Cal. 2d 639
- 111 P.2d 322
- 1941 Cal. LEXIS 298
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- attempting to change beneficiaries of life insurance policy through a will does not fall within “substantial compliance” rule because no endeavor was made to communicate the change to the insurer
- “[i]t is a fundamental rule of 17 law, as conceded by both parties, that in an ordinary life insurance policy where the insured reserves the right to change the beneficiary named therein, such change may be made by him at 18 any time prior to his death”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Carter
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
53 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Susan Cripps, Defendant-Cross-Claimant-Appellant v. Life Insurance Company of North America, Plaintiff-Cross-Defendant-AppelleeNinth Circuit· 1992-12-01· cited 655×
- Beckwith v. DahlCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2012-05-03· cited 101×
- Grimm v. GrimmCalifornia Supreme Court· 1945-03-27· cited 96×
- Loring v. Town of KingsleyCalifornia Supreme Court· 1946-12-17· cited 95×
- Watenpaugh v. State Teacher's Retirement SystemCalifornia Supreme Court· 1959-03-10· cited 57×
- Robert C. Sears and Lavonne Stern v. Karen AustinNinth Circuit· 1961-06-20· cited 44×
- Estate of NorrisCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1947-02-19· cited 40×
- Wells Fargo Bank & Union Trust Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court· 1948-05-25· cited 33×
- Stevens v. TorreganoCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1961-05-15· cited 33×
- Doss v. KalasArizona Supreme Court· 1963-06-26· cited 27×
- McBain v. PrattAlaska Supreme Court· 1973-10-04· cited 27×
- Estate of BuckhantzCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1958-04-23· cited 20×
- Watenpaugh v. State Teachers' RetirementCalifornia Supreme Court· 1959-03-10· cited 19×
- Kane v. Union Mutual Life InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York· 1981-12-31· cited 18×
- Cranston v. MendenhallCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1960-07-05· cited 17×
- Eggert v. American Trust Co.California Court of Appeal· 1945-10-30· cited 16×
- Estate of WhiteCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1945-06-27· cited 16×
- Goldberg v. GoldbergCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1963-06-27· cited 16×
- Estate of Sparling v. CommissionerU.S. Tax Court· 1973-06-05· cited 15×
- Vincent v. Security-First National BankCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1945-01-19· cited 11×
Cites
5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Grigsby v. RussellSupreme Court· 1911-12-04· cited 153×
- Jory v. Supreme Council American Legion of HonorCalifornia Supreme Court· 1894-12-07· cited 56×
- Pimentel v. Conselho Supremo de Uniao Portugueza do Estado da CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court· 1936-04-29· cited 35×
- In re the Estate of GwinCalifornia Supreme Court· 1888-11-01· cited 17×
- Supreme Council v. GehrenbeckCalifornia Supreme Court· 1899-03-18· cited 7×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.