Shook v. Shook

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that it is within the discretion of the trial judge whether to reopen the case, “except where his action is arbitrary and the rights of some of the parties are improperly affected.”
• brother and sister who sued joint owner, brother, named on trust account who took remaining balance at death of donor successfully rebutted presumption of valid trust with evidence that account was opened for convenience of father who intended balance to be divided among children
• donor intended to facilitate settlement of estate

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

10 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Shaffer v. Lohr
  Court of Appeals of Maryland· 1972-02-09· cited 31×
• Blair, Exec. v. Haas
  Court of Appeals of Maryland· 1957-12-18· cited 18×
• Cooper v. Sacco
  Court of Appeals of Maryland· 2000-02-11· cited 14×
• Ebert v. Ritchey
  Court of Special Appeals of Maryland· 1983-04-14· cited 13×
• Barker v. Aiello
  Court of Special Appeals of Maryland· 1990-11-05· cited 8×
• Kuhl v. Reese, Administrator
  Court of Appeals of Maryland· 2001-09-25· cited 7×
• Boehm v. Harrington
  Court of Special Appeals of Maryland· 1983-04-13· cited 7×
• Potts v. Emerick
  Court of Appeals of Maryland· 1982-06-01· cited 6×
• Bama, Inc. v. Anne Arundel County
  Court of Special Appeals of Maryland· 1982-11-05· cited 6×
• In re: Estate of Duraiswamy
  Court of Special Appeals of Maryland· 2026-04-03