# Estill v. Sisters of Charity

> Washington Supreme Court · December 31, 1970 · 78 Wash. 2d 623

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9541132

## Case

- **Full name:** In the Matter of the Estate of M. Josephine Reilly, Deceased. Frances Reilly Estill Et Al., Respondents and Cross-Appellants, v. Sisters of Charity of the House of Providence Et Al., Appellants
- **Court:** Washington Supreme Court
- **Decided:** December 31, 1970
- **Citations:** 78 Wash. 2d 623; 479 P.2d 1; 48 A.L.R. 3d 902; 1970 Wash. LEXIS 339
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Sharp
- **Judges:** Donworth, Finley, Sharp
- **Cited by:** 60 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9541132

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- recognizing that "[e]vidence which is `substantial' to support a preponderance may not be sufficient to support the clear, cogent, and convincing" standard
- stating that “[e]vidence which is ‘substantial’ to support a preponderance may not be sufficient to support the clear, cogent, and convincing” standard

## Opinion text

Sharp, J.
(dissenting) — In view of the length of the majority opinion (which in turn necessitated an unduly lengthy dissent), an observation on the scope of Supreme Court review in will contests seems appropriate. At one time will contests were tried de novo by this court. Fortunately, the rules have been changed, and now our function is to ascertain whether the findings are supported by substantial evidence. In re Estate of Kleinlein, 59 Wn.2d 111 , 366 P.2d 186 (1961). As Justice Weaver stated in the will contest In re Estate of Dand, 41 Wn.2d 158 , 247 P.2d 1016 (1952):
This case is a striking example of the wisdom of our rule that the trial court, having the witnesses before it, is in a better position to arrive at the truth than is the appellate court.
My examination of the record discloses substantial evidence to support the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the trial court. For that reason I would affirm.
July 9, 1971. Petition for rehearing denied.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9541132. Public record. Not legal advice.