Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 16,800+ case briefs...

In re Estate of Patten

Montana Supreme Court
587 P.2d 1307 (1978)


Ella Patten executed a valid will in 1968. The will named her son, Robert Patten (defendant), as the executor. In 1970, Ella executed a second will, but this will was invalidly executed. This 1970 invalid will named Ella’s other son, Donald Patten (plaintiff), as the executor. The 1970 will also varied some of the disposition of the estate. After Ella’s death, the original 1968 will could not be found. Donald filed a petition to probate a copy of the 1968 will as a lost will. The district court declined to apply the doctrine of dependent relative revocation and granted summary judgment to Robert, finding that the 1968 will was revoked and denying Donald’s petition. Donald appealed.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Haswell, C.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 449,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read 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. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 449,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 16,800 briefs, keyed to 224 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.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial