PROBATE
A.F. v. Jeffrey F.
A151468
A154286
A155398
A155742
A157962
A158323
A158323M
A159532
A160473
A160985
A162222
A162671
A164821
A165163
A166830_20250827
A167001_20250820
A168185_20250822
A168634_20250827
A168697_20250827
A169131
A169131_20250813
A169131_20250814
A169527_20250822
A169579
A169579_20250815
A170012_20250825
A170297_20250821
A170497
A170497_20250827
A170526_20250820
A170812_20250822
A170942_test
A171063_20250827
A171241
A171257
A171257A
A171358_20250821
A172132_20250825
A172149_20250822
A172526_20250820
Algo-Heyres v. Oxnard Manor
Asaro v. Maniscalco
B123456
B234567
B281051
B281051M
B288054
B289603
B290526
B290805A
B292448
B292747
B293127
B293952
B294530
B295609
B295648
B295648M
B296011
B297092
B298119
B299238
B299856
B300017
B300021
B301382
B301382A
B303898
B305834
B306103
B306918
B306918M
B307242
B307338
B307559
B308440
B308440M
B308574
B309234
B309376
B310619
B310906
B311507
B312967
B314311_20250827
B316261
B316261M
B328280_20250827
B331542_20250821
B331563_20250821
B332035_20250820
B332168_20250827
B332387_20250822
B332538_20250827
B333052
B333665
B333693_20250822
B334247_20250820
B334375_20250825
B334751_20250827
B335334_20250825
B335353
B335353_20250825
B335531_20250821
B335902_20250822
B336249_20250820
B336334_20250821
B336342_20250825
B336392_20250822
B336726_20250822
B336891_20250821
B337005_20250827
B337091_20250827
B337121_20250822
B337181_20250822
B337603_20250827
B338071_20250827
B338116_20250827
B338133_20250821
B338172_20250822
B338220_20250820
B338271_20250820
B338866_20250821
B338903_20250821
B339088_20250822
B339218_20250827
B339277_20250825
B339326_20250825
B339555_20250827
B339596_20250822
B339687_20250822
B340108_20250820
B340384_20250820
B340594_20250825
B340611_20250821
B340834_20250821
B340959_20250820
B340973_20250822
B341106_20250822
B341278_20250827
B341556_20250827
B341730_20250827
B341793_20250820
B343053_20250827
B343637_20250822
B345915_20250820
Bailey v. Bailey
C077666
C084020
C084032
C084032M
C084083
C089338
C089338M
C091636
C092584
C092584M
C095856
C095856M
C096487_20250827
C098456_20250820
C098735
C098735_20250814
C099713_20250825
C099877_20250827
C100027_20250827
C100050_20250827
C100138_20250820
C100387_20250821
C100390_20250822
C100497_20250827
C100536_20250820
C101173_20250827
C101248_20250822
C101480_20250825
C101500_20250825
C101659_20250820
C102464_20250822
C102739_20250825
Cohen v. Super. Ct.
Cohen v. Super. Ct.
Colvis v. Binswanger
Conservatorship of T.B.
Conservatorship of Tedesco
D072850
D072850M
D075907
D076318
D077468
D077561
D078049
D078294
D079406
D079623
D082158
D082158A
D082480
D084004_20250822
D084504_20250825
D084665_20250827
D084683_20250822
D084893_20250827
D085014_20250822
D085146_20250820
D085582_20250827
D085997_20250825
Diaz v. Zuniga
Dora V. v. Super. Ct.
Dupree v. CIT Bank
Dupree v. CIT Bank
E070210
E070918
E074339
E074949
E075232
E077036
E081563_20250827
E082864_20250821
E083150_20250820
E083649_20250827
E083730_20250822
E083806_20250822
E085158_20250820
E085289_20250827
E085308_20250822
E085535_20250821
E085570_20250821
E085764_20250821
E085928_20250821
Enmark v. KC Community Care
Estate of Berger
Estate of Flores
Estate of Franco
Estate of Martino
Estate of Sanchez
Estate of Williams
F078083
F079719
F080403
F080831
F081415
F082289
F087056_20250820
F087745_20250821
F087945_20250821
F087986_20250821
F087996_20250827
F088063_20250827
F088142_20250820
F088178_20250821
F088206_20250827
F088237_20250827
F088262_20250822
F088265_20250827
F088283_20250822
F088324_20250821
F088526_20250827
F088631_20250827
F088670_20250827
F088679
F088679_20250814
F089025_20250827
F089225_20250827
F089231_20250827
F089359_20250821
G055631
G055631M
G056951
G058416
G058576
G060663
G061647_20250825
G062473_20250822
G063155
G063364_20250822
G063394
G063394_20250814
G063394_20250815
G063437
G063437_20250822
G063695_20250821
G063732_20250821
G063734_20250827
G063827_20250821
G064050_20250821
G064080_20250821
G064240_20250821
G064621_20250822
G064652_20250822
G064654_20250821
G064697_20250821
G064720_20250821
G064938_20250827
Godoy v. Linzner
H044960
H047087
H048393
H048393M
H051398_20250822
H051611_20250820
H051745_20250821
H052062_20250820
H052417_20250827
H052869_20250822
Haggerty v. Thornton
Hamilton v. Green
Hamlin v. Jendayi
Harrod v. Country Oaks Partners, LLC
Hernandez v. Sohnen Enterprises
In re T.R.
JAD21-08
Key v. Tyler
L.A. Unified School Dist. v. Super. Ct.
Littlefield v. Littlefield
Luo v. Volokh
Malear v. State of California
markdown
Marriage of Diamond
Maxwell v. Atria Management Co., LLC
McGee v. State Dept. of Health Care Services
Newell v. Super. Ct.
Newman v. Casey
Pool-O'Connor v. Guadarrama
Reich v. Reich
Robinson v. Gutierrez
S245996
S251574
S251574A
S252473
S254938
S258212
S271265
S275848_20250821
S281282_20250825
S282314
Smith v. Myers
Spears v. Spears
Stadel Art Museum v. Mulvihill
Starr v. Ashbrook
The Law Firm of Fox and Fox v. Chase Bank
Trotter v. Van Dyck
White v. Davis
Young v. Hartford
Zahnleuter v. Mueller
Conservatorship of Anne S.
In which the Second District Court of Appeal held, in an opinion filed on July 10, 2025, that only persons who meet the statutory definition of an "interested person" under Probate Code section 1820 may file a petition for conservatorship, and a neighbor with no substantive relationship to the proposed conservatee lacks standing to do so.
Estate of Boyajian
In which the Fourth District Court of Appeal held, in an opinion filed on July 07, 2025, that the probate court correctly applied the law in administering the estate.
In re Bradshaw
In which the California Supreme Court held, in an opinion filed on July 03, 2025, that the lower court's ruling was proper under California law.
Amundson v. Catello
In which the Fourth District Court of Appeal held, in an opinion filed on June 03, 2025, that the trial court's decision was supported by substantial evidence.
Goebner v. Super. Ct.
In which the First District Court of Appeal held, in an opinion filed on April 30, 2025, that the trial court's decision was supported by substantial evidence.
Herren v. George S.
In which the First District Court of Appeal held, in an opinion filed on March 04, 2025, that a petition for an elder-abuse restraining order may be granted under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act even though the protected person's capacity has not yet been formally adjudicated, so long as the court finds substantial evidence of financial abuse.
Estate of Tarlow
In which the Second District Court of Appeal held, in an opinion filed on February 27, 2025, that the probate court correctly applied the law in administering the estate.
Packard v. Packard
In which the Fourth District Court of Appeal held, in an opinion filed on February 24, 2025, that a petition seeking construction or reformation of a trust amendment is not a "trust contest" under Probate Code section 16061.
Godoy v. Linzner
In which the Court of Appeal held, in an opinion filed on November 13, 2024, that the trial court's decision was supported by substantial evidence.
Trotter v. Van Dyck
In which the Court of Appeal held, in an opinion filed on June 27, 2024, that the trial court's decision was supported by substantial evidence.
Luo v. Volokh
In which the Court of Appeal held, in an opinion filed on June 25, 2024, that the trial court's decision was supported by substantial evidence.
Cohen v. Super. Ct.
In which the Court of Appeal held, in an opinion filed on June 20, 2024, that the trial court's decision was supported by substantial evidence.
Key v. Tyler
In which the Court of Appeal held, in an opinion filed on May 28, 2024, that the trial court's decision was supported by substantial evidence.
Hernandez v. Sohnen Enterprises
In which the Court of Appeal held, in an opinion filed on May 22, 2024, that the trial court's decision was supported by substantial evidence.
Harrod v. Country Oaks Partners, LLC
Conservatorship of T.B.
Haggerty v. Thornton
Newman v. Casey
Estate of Flores
Hamilton v. Green
Robinson v. Gutierrez
Spears v. Spears
Estate of Martino
Colvis v. Binswanger
Stadel Art Museum v. Mulvihill
Bailey v. Bailey
Estate of Sanchez
The Law Firm of Fox and Fox v. Chase Bank
Dupree v. CIT Bank
L.A. Unified School Dist. v. Super. Ct.
Estate of Berger
McGee v. State Dept. of Health Care Services
Diaz v. Zuniga
Conservatorship of Tedesco
Pool-O'Connor v. Guadarrama
A.F. v. Jeffrey F.
Malear v. State of California
Zahnleuter v. Mueller
Algo-Heyres v. Oxnard Manor
Estate of Franco
Starr v. Ashbrook
White v. Davis
Wehsener v. Jernigan
Chui v. Chui
Holt v. Brock
Adoption of M.R.
Limon v. Circle K Stores
Parker v. Schwarcz
In re E.L.
Guardianship of A.H.
Maleti v. Wickers
Estate of El Wardani
Logan v. Country Oaks Partners
Guardianship of Saul H.
Meiri v. Shamtoubi
Royals v. Lu
Tukes v. Richard
K.R. v. Superior Court
Bruno v. Hopkins
Welch v. Welch
In re Z.O.
People v. Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc.
Estate of Eskra
Autonomous Region of Narcotics Anon v. Narcotics Anon World Svcs
Torres v. Adventist Health System/West
Marriage of Zucker
Gann v. Acosta
Balistreri v. Balistreri
Riverside County Public Guardian v. Snukst
People v. Financial Casualty & Surety
Conservatorship of Joanne R.
Ring v. Harmon
People v. Washington
Conservatorship of C.O.
People v. Philadelphia Reinsurance Corporation
Li v. Super. Ct.
Humphrey v. Bewley
Guardianship of S.H.R.
Dae v. Traver
Schrage v. Schrage
In re Samuel A.
Alameda County Waste Mgmt Authority v. Waste Connections US, Inc.
Hudson v. Foster
Pearce v. Briggs
Turner v. Victoria
Knapp v. Ginsberg
Conservatorship of Farrant
M.M. v. D.V.
Conservatorship of A.B.
Conservatorship of K.P.
Marriage of Wendt and Pullen
Dunlap v. Mayer
Rubio v. CIA Wheel Group
Breslin v. Breslin
Eyford v. Nord
Conservatorship of Brokken
Boshernitsan v. Bach
Keading v. Keading
Searles v. Archangel
Capra v. Capra
Capra v. Capra
Conservatorship of Navarrete
Conservatorship of O.B.
Jones v. Goodman
Gomez v. Smith
Doe v. Yim
Gomez v. Smith
Buskirk v. Buskirk
Buskirk v. Buskirk
Holley v. Silverado Senior Living Management
Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation District
Rallo v. O'Brian
Conservatorship of O.B.
In re Brace
Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.
Cundall v. Mitchell-Clyde
People v. Braum
In People v. Braum, the court upheld the City's civil judgments against Daniel Braum without violating double jeopardy or excessive fines clauses.
Estate of Eimers
In Estate of Eimers, the California probate court ruled it cannot alter a holographic will perProbate Code restrictions.
Robertson v. Saadat
The case, Robertson v. Saadat, established that a widow has no legal right to use her late husband's sperm posthumously.
Tubbs v. Berkowitz
In *Tubbs v. Berkowitz*, the court determined that a trustee's exercise of a general power of appointment is non-fiduciary, allowing self-benefit without breach.
Donkin v. Donkin
Donkin v. Donkin establishes that a 2002 amendment doesn't alter irrevocable trust terms, and beneficiaries' petition for accounting isn't time-barred.
Estate of Ashlock
The Court affirmed a \"twice the value\" penalty on $5,148,000 of real estate, holding that the fiduciary had the burden to substantiate their accountings.
Wilkin v. Nelson
The California probate court validated equitable reform of Hanako Nelson's pour-over will, restricting it to separate property assets. This case highlights the strict evidence requirement for testamentary intent.
Roth v. Jelley
In Roth v. Jelley, the court found the 1991 Decree violated Mark Roth's remainder interest without adequate due process, leading to the reversal of the lower court's ruling.
Conservatorship of A.E.
The case establishes that courts must comply with §1825's attendance requirements, emphasizing the procedural rigor in conservatorships.
Barefoot v. Jennings
Barefoot v. Jennings holds that beneficiaries removed from a revocable trust by an amendment can contest its validity if they had standing when the amendment was made.
O.C. v. Super. Ct.
The Court holds that SIJ findings must be based on California law and properly cited on Judicial Council forms. Non-compliant findings are subject to mandamus correction.
Sachs v. Sachs
The court affirms the use of informal records and email confirmations to meet advancement requirements under Probate Code §21135. This decision simplifies probate processes by validating everyday communication for legal purposes.