Matthews v. Matthews-Baker

How courts have described this case

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

• court rejected argument that extrinsic evidence could be considered for purpose of considering circumstances under which holographic will was made; will at issue involved patent ambiguity, not latent ambiguity
• court rejected argu- ment that extrinsic evidence could be considered for purpose of considering circumstances under which holographic will was made; will at issue involved patent ambiguity, not latent ambiguity

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).