Source: http://rosenthaltaxlaw.com/probatewillcontestundueinfluence.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 10:36:25+00:00

Document:
Franciscan Sisters Health Care Corp. v. Dean, 95 Ill.2d 452 (1983).
holding that such “affection” is improper (see, e.g., Kelley v. First State Bank of Princeton, 81 Ill.
92 Ill. App. 2d 88 (2d Dist 1968).
person who must rely on others or is exposed and at risk presumably cannot. See Sulzberger v.
Sulzberger, 372 Ill. 240 (1939).
dominant party in the relationship, when there is trust given to the person exercising influence.
Estate of Roeseler, 287 Ill. App. 3d 1003 (1st Dist 1997).
attorney preparing a will gives rise to undue influence. Tidholm v. Tidholm, 391 Ill. 19 (1945).
imputed to the beneficiary. Swensen v. Wintercorn, , 92 Ill. App. 2d 88 (1968).
Rule 236. The opinion of a layperson regarding the decedent’s capacity is admissible generally.
In Belfield v. Coop, 8 Ill.2d 293 (1956) and Swenson v. Wintercorn, 92 Ill.App.2d 88 (2d Dist.
favor of the opponent of the will and a verdict of undue influence.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.