Estate of Robert H. Agnew v. Ross, D.

How courts have described this case

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

• appellees satisfied standing requirement because “the record supports an inference that Ross intended to give [appellees] the benefit of his contract with Mr. Agnew”
• appellees satisfied standing requirement because “the record supports an inference that Ross intended to give [appellees] the benefit of his contract with Mr. Agnew”
• “Unless an issue in a panel decision commands a majority both as to result and as to rationale, the principle embodied in the issue is not precedential.”
• “Unless an issue in a panel decision commands a majority both as to result and as to rationale, the principle embodied in the issue is not precedential.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).