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).

Cited by

4 cases in this archive cite this case.

• In Re Estate of Mousel
  Nebraska Supreme Court· 2006-05-26· cited 54×
• Seemann v. Seemann
  Nebraska Supreme Court· 2025-03-21· cited 8×
• Lovorn v. Brethouwer (In Re Estate of Tiedeman)
  Nebraska Court of Appeals· 2018-04-10· cited 5×
• In re Estate of Tiedeman
  Nebraska Court of Appeals· 2018-04-10· cited 1×

Cites

10 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Shriners Hospital for Children v. Domeier
  Nebraska Supreme Court· 2000-07-28· cited 54×
• In Re Estate of Mecello
  Nebraska Supreme Court· 2001-09-07· cited 33×
• Shriners Hospitals for Crippled Children v. Grand Lodge of the Ancient, Free & Accepted Masons
  Nebraska Supreme Court· 1981-12-11· cited 30×
• In Re Estate of Walker
  Nebraska Supreme Court· 1987-03-06· cited 24×
• In Re Estate of Corrigan
  Nebraska Supreme Court· 1984-11-30· cited 18×
• Scriven v. Scriven
  Nebraska Supreme Court· 1951-01-26· cited 15×
• In Re Estate of Smatlan
  Nebraska Court of Appeals· 1992-10-20· cited 13×
• Dumond v. Dumond
  Nebraska Supreme Court· 1952-01-18· cited 7×
• Roberts v. Snow Redfern Memorial Foundation
  Nebraska Supreme Court· 1976-05-12· cited 7×
• Allemand v. Weaver
  Nebraska Supreme Court· 1981-04-24· cited 4×