English v. Cobb

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the probate court had jurisdiction to determine claim that respondent wrongfully withdrew funds from decedent’s savings account because the suit involved the right to probate assets and had a direct bearing on the assimilation collection, and distribution of the estate
• holding that the probate court had jurisdiction to determine claim that respondent wrongfully withdrew funds from decedent's savings account because the suit involved the right to probate assets and had a direct bearing on the assimilation collection, and distribution of the estate
• stating that an action incident to an estate is one in which the outcome will have direct bearing on collecting, assimilating, or distributing the decedent‘s estate
• stating that an action incident to an estate is one in which the outcome will have direct bearing on collecting, assimilating, or distributing the decedent’s estate
• “The determination of a decedent’s right to probate assets necessarily falls within the scope of being an action ‘incident to an estate.’”
• “The determination of a decedent’s right to probate assets necessarily falls within the scope of being an action ‘incident to an estate.’ Furthermore, the outcome of this suit will have a direct bearing on the assimilation, collection, and distribution of Mrs. English’s estate.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).