Steinberger v. Steinberger
California Court of Appeal
140 P.2d 31 (1943)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
William Steinberger, along with his nephew, Earle Steinberger (plaintiff), and another relative each owned one-third of a piece of property. William and Earle had a close relationship. When Earle decided to travel away from the family property, William and Earle orally agreed that William would take care of Earle’s interest in the property, in trust, until Earle asked for its return. Earle then signed a deed transferring his one-third interest to William. After William’s death, Earle asked William’s estate (defendant) to return Earle’s one-third interest. However, because the trust agreement was not in writing, the estate refused. Earle sued. The trial court found that an oral trust agreement existed, that William and Earle had a confidential relationship, and that the estate was required to return Earle’s property interest. The estate appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Peters, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
