Herrmann v. Rogers

Supreme Court

Herrmann v. Rogers

358 U.S. 332, 79 S. Ct. 353, 3 L. Ed. 2d 345, 1959 U.S. LEXIS 1610

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedJanuary 26, 1959

Docket572

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 358 U.S. 332 (Herrmann v. Rogers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Herrmann v. Rogers, 358 U.S. 332, 79 S. Ct. 353, 3 L. Ed. 2d 345, 1959 U.S. LEXIS 1610 (1959).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The petition for writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the cause is remanded to it, to consider whether, under the law of property of Idaho, it was possible, after the time of the making of the conveyance, for any person other than the named beneficiaries of the trust to acquire a property interest in it (other than through a named beneficiary), and, in the light of its determination as to this, to reconsider its holding that respondent was entitled to all the trust funds remaining in the hands of the trustee.

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

Per Curiam.

The petition for writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the cause is remanded to it, to consider whether, under the law of property of Idaho, it was possible, after the time of the making of the conveyance, for any person other than the named beneficiaries of the trust to acquire a property interest in it (other than through a named beneficiary), and, in the light of its determination as to this, to reconsider its holding that respondent was entitled to all the trust funds remaining in the hands of the trustee.

Frieda Hermann, as Sole Remaining Trustee Under Trust Agreement Dated March 30, 1946, by and Between Fred Nagel, Donor, and Frieda Hermann and Hazel Ouse, Trustees v. Herbert Brownell, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, Herbert Brownell, Jr., Attorney General of the United States v. Frieda Hermann, as Sole Remaining Trustee Under Trust Agreement Dated March 30, 1946, by and Between Fred Nagel, Donor, and Frieda Hermann and Hazel Ouse, Trustees

274 F.2d 842 (Ninth Circuit, 1960)

Hermann v. Brownell

274 F.2d 842 (Ninth Circuit, 1960)

First National Bank v. Kirschmann

97 N.W.2d 441 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1959)

In Re Trusteeship Under Will of Schmidt

256 Minn. 64 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1959)

Mtr. of City of New York (Usa Coblentz)

157 N.E.2d 587 (New York Court of Appeals, 1959)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

358 U.S. 332, 79 S. Ct. 353, 3 L. Ed. 2d 345, 1959 U.S. LEXIS 1610, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/herrmann-v-rogers-scotus-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack