Porreca v. Gaglione

How courts have described this case

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

• affirming the admission of “parol evidence” to prove that a trust instrument was a sham
• extrinsic evidence is not barred “because the defendants attempt not to vary or contradict [the trust’s] terms but, rather, to challenge its very existence”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).