Armenian Relief Society, Inc. v. Kevorkian

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Armenian Relief Society, Inc. v. Kevorkian

325 N.E.2d 599, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 735, 1975 Mass. App. LEXIS 763

DecidedApril 11, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 325 N.E.2d 599 (Armenian Relief Society, Inc. v. Kevorkian) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Appeals Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Armenian Relief Society, Inc. v. Kevorkian, 325 N.E.2d 599, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 735, 1975 Mass. App. LEXIS 763 (Mass. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

This is an appeal from a probate judge’s denial of a motion to frame jury issues on a petition for the allowance of a will. The case was heard on oral statements of counsel. The judge made a report of material facts in which he found “that there was no doubtful question of fact supported by evidence.” The prospective evidence is reported. We have examined the entire record in the light of the [736]*736familiar principles of law governing such cases (Seiferth v. Hay, 352 Mass. 768 [1967]; Kozlowski v. Golis, 2 Mass. App. Ct. 797 [1974]) and have concluded that there was no error in the judge’s denial of the motion. See Foye v. King, 340 Mass. 787 (1960); DiMaggio v. Verdone, 358 Mass. 810 (1970).

Charles F. Nayor for Mary Barkev Kevorkian. Lincoln Z. Jalelian for Gaidzag Ayvazian & another. Abner R. Sisson for the Armenian Relief Society, Inc.

Order denying motion affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

This is an appeal from a probate judge’s denial of a motion to frame jury issues on a petition for the allowance of a will. The case was heard on oral statements of counsel. The judge made a report of material facts in which he found “that there was no doubtful question of fact supported by evidence.” The prospective evidence is reported. We have examined the entire record in the light of the [736]*736familiar principles of law governing such cases (Seiferth v. Hay, 352 Mass. 768 [1967]; Kozlowski v. Golis, 2 Mass. App. Ct. 797 [1974]) and have concluded that there was no error in the judge’s denial of the motion. See Foye v. King, 340 Mass. 787 (1960); DiMaggio v. Verdone, 358 Mass. 810 (1970).

Charles F. Nayor for Mary Barkev Kevorkian. Lincoln Z. Jalelian for Gaidzag Ayvazian & another. Abner R. Sisson for the Armenian Relief Society, Inc.

Order denying motion affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

325 N.E.2d 599, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 735, 1975 Mass. App. LEXIS 763, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/armenian-relief-society-inc-v-kevorkian-massappct-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack