Van Syckel v. Beam

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding, where the statute at issue was silent on whether it was to be applied prospectively or retrospectively, that it could be applied retrospectively, and, in so doing, noting “that a majority of other jurisdictions appear to be in accord with our holding”
• testator’s right to name a beneficiary is no more vested than beneficiary’s right to take under a will
• “Unless otherwise inhibited by either the State or Federal Constitutions, the Legislature may change existing laws, both statutory and common, at its pleasure . . . .” (quotation omitted)
• trial court has broad discretion in managing the proceedings before it

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).