Kozlowski v. Golis

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Kozlowski v. Golis

307 N.E.2d 583, 2 Mass. App. Ct. 797

CourtMassachusetts Appeals Court

DecidedMarch 6, 1974

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 307 N.E.2d 583 (Kozlowski v. Golis) 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

Kozlowski v. Golis, 307 N.E.2d 583, 2 Mass. App. Ct. 797 (Mass. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

The proponent appeals from an order of a Probate Court allowing a motion to frame jury issues. The issues ordered to be framed are: (1) soundness of mind of the deceased at the time of the execution of the alleged will, and (2) whether the execution of the will was procured by undue influence. The motion was heard upon statements by counsel of expected evidence and pleadings in related litigation. We are to decide the case giving due weight to the decision of the probate judge. Simoneau v. O’Brien, 311 Mass. 68, 74 (1942). To be decided is whether there is “a genuine and doubtful question of fact to be determined and evidence of such substantial nature as to afford reasonable expectation of a result favorable to the . . . [contestant].” Boston Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Blaisdell, 333 Mass. 51, 56 (1955). Applying these settled principles to the prospective evidence, we conclude that the order of the judge was warranted.

Order allowing motion for jury issues affirmed.

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

The proponent appeals from an order of a Probate Court allowing a motion to frame jury issues. The issues ordered to be framed are: (1) soundness of mind of the deceased at the time of the execution of the alleged will, and (2) whether the execution of the will was procured by undue influence. The motion was heard upon statements by counsel of expected evidence and pleadings in related litigation. We are to decide the case giving due weight to the decision of the probate judge. Simoneau v. O’Brien, 311 Mass. 68, 74 (1942). To be decided is whether there is “a genuine and doubtful question of fact to be determined and evidence of such substantial nature as to afford reasonable expectation of a result favorable to the . . . [contestant].” Boston Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Blaisdell, 333 Mass. 51, 56 (1955). Applying these settled principles to the prospective evidence, we conclude that the order of the judge was warranted.

Order allowing motion for jury issues affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

307 N.E.2d 583, 2 Mass. App. Ct. 797, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kozlowski-v-golis-massappct-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack