IN RE ESTATE OF MEYER YEDLIN, DECEASED. EDWARD YEDLIN, APPELLANT,
v.
SYLVIA YEDLIN AND BERNARD YEDLIN, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
This case involves an appeal challenging the probate of a copy of a will. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the key findings necessary for probate.
Yes, the appellate court held that there was substantial evidence to support the county judge's findings on all essential issues, and the judge did not misinterpret the legal effect of the evidence.
“Upon examination of the record, with the benefit of the briefs of the parties and arguments of 'counsel, we conclude that those essential and controlling findings of [*472] the county judge were supported by substantial evidence, and that he did not misinterpret the legal effect of the evidence as a whole.”
This quote establishes the appellate court's conclusion that the lower court's findings were adequately supported by evidence and legal interpretation.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant protested the probate of a copy of a will, raising several issues including the deceased's residency, due execution of the will, proof o…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Residency cases and more on FLexlaw
On this appeal from an order of the county judge’s court, admitting to probate a copy of a will over appellant’s protest, he has assigned 54 errors upon which he presented 17 questions.
Appellant argued that evidence was lacking to support the court’s findings that the deceased was a resident of Florida, that due execution of the will under § 731.07, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., was proved as required by § 732.24, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., that the copy of the will which was offered for probate was proved as provided under § 732.-27, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., and that there had been no revocation of the will.
Upon examination of the record, with the benefit of the briefs of the parties and arguments of 'counsel, we conclude that those essential and controlling findings of *472the county judge were supported by substantial evidence, and that he did not misinterpret the legal effect of the evidence as a whole.
No useful purpose would he served by stating the factual details, and the arguments made on these matters. We have considered the other points raised by the appellant and find them also to be without merit.
The judgment appealed from should be, and hereby is,
Affirmed.
HORTON, C. J., and PEARSON and CARROLL, CHAS., JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Yedlin v. Yedlin, 126 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 1960)…Appeal dismissed without opinion. 123 So. 2d 471.…