Site Meter

Law on TV

You may also like...

4 Responses

  1. Michael Yuri says:

    Was the will written before or after the murder victims were born? If before, then (assuming NY law applies) Sherlock may be right:

    http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/EPT/5/3/5-3.2

    Also, according to Wikipedia, “Some jurisidictions provide the same rights for a child who was pretermitted because, although born before the will was executed, he was not known of at the time the will was made.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretermitted_heir)

    This doesn’t appear to be the law in NY, but I have no idea what the case law says.

  2. Kent says:

    In Indiana, if the children were born after the will was executed they may be entitled to their intestate share.

    “When a testator fails to provide in his will for any of his children born or adopted after the making of his last will, such child, whether born before or after the testator’s death, shall receive a share in the estate of the testator equal in value to that which he would have received if the testator had died intestate, unless it appears from the will that such omission was intentional, or unless when the will was executed the testator had one (1) or more children known to him to be living and devised substantially all his estate to the spouse who survives him.

    (b) If, at the time of the making of his will, the testator believes any of his children to be dead, and fails to provide for such child in his will, the child shall receive a share in the estate of the testator equal in value to that which he would have received if the testator had died intestate, unless it appears from the will or from other evidence that the testator would not have devised anything to such child had he known that the child was alive.”

    I.C. § 29-1-3-8

  3. TV law can be great for teaching. When LA Law was on in the 80s, I’d schedule my 1Ls on Friday so we could talk about the previous night’s show. Great stuff

  4. Bart Torvik says:

    In Bright v. Dicke, the Illinois Supreme Court infamously held that lack of prejudice was not grounds for allowing a late response to requests to admit. In that case the responses were filed just a few days late. Three courts (trial, appellate, and supreme) said: tough luck.

    And it doesn’t take prior discovery problems for this mistake to destroy a case. If you fail to respond to requests that go straight to the elements, you’ve constructively admitted the other side’s version of the case. In other words: you lose.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Anti-spam image