VIOLA LOWENSTEIN, ET AL., APPELLANTS

v.

THE DIXIE HOLDING COMPANY, A CORPORATION, ET AL., APPELLEES

Citator

Cited By

• In re Est. of Wm. F. Zimmerman v. Zimmerman, 84 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 1956)
  …the testator, Wm. F. Zimmerman, had testamentary capacity at the time he executed his will of January 5, 1949, and the codicil thereto of December 22, 1949. Appellants who are the proponents contend that Hooper v. Stokes, 107 Fla. 607, 145 So. 855, 146 So. 668, rules the instant case, while appellees contend that it is ruled by Newman v. Smith, 77 Fla. 633, 667, 688, 82 So. 236. It is true that there are parallels in these cases to the case at bar but it is also true that it contains • aspects that distin…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Hattie S. Zinnser v. Gregory, 77 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 1955)
  …xecuted his will, but contend that due to monomania directed toward his relatives, he was mentally incapable of making a valid will that would exclude as beneficiaries the appellants, his nieces. In Hooper v. Stokes, 107 Fla. 607, 145 So. 855, 857, 146 So. 668, Monamania was defined as follows: “Monomania, sometimes designated paranoia, has reference to a craze or mania for a single object or class of objects. The subject of it may be perfectly sane as to all other objects. As with an insane delusion, mo…
• In re Est. of Catherine B. Bailey v. Bailey, 122 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)
  …test will not be disturbed by an appellate court where the substantial competent evidence is sufficient to sustain those findings unless the probate judge has misapprehended the evidence as a whole. Hooper v. Stokes, 1933, 107 Fla. 607, 145 So. 855, 146 So. 668; Neal v. Harrington, supra; In re Wilmott’s Estate, supra; and Williams v. Kane, Fla.1956, 88 So. 2d 599. The testimony offered by the appellants, conflicting with that offered on behalf of the appellees, was deemed by the probate court to have been…