Connecticut Junior Republic v. Sharon Hospital

448 A.2d 190 (1982)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 37,200+ case briefs...

Connecticut Junior Republic v. Sharon Hospital

Connecticut Supreme Court

448 A.2d 190 (1982)

Facts

In 1960, Richards Emerson executed a will leaving the remainder of his estate in trust to seven named charities (1960 charities) (defendants). In 1969, Emerson executed a codicil replacing the 1960 charities with a new group of 11 charities (1969 charities) (plaintiffs). In 1975, Emerson requested that a second codicil be drafted that would merely change a classification of the trust for tax purposes. Emerson’s lawyer made the change but also mistakenly reinserted the 1960 charities into the trust. Emerson did not ask for this reinsertion and signed the codicil without knowing about the change in beneficiaries. The 1969 charities argued that the beneficiary list in the second codicil was a mistake and did not reflect Emerson’s intent and that, as a result, the second codicil should not be admitted to probate. The probate court admitted the second codicil after finding that extrinsic evidence of the attorney’s mistake was not admissible. The superior court affirmed. The 1969 charities appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Healey, J.)

Dissent (Peters, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 629,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 629,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 37,200 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 629,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 37,200 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership