Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.
// request.cf · coarse context
A page that knows where it met you.
Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LatinWikipedia:WikiProject LatinTemplate:WikiProject LatinLatin
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
There is no citation of explination why the in terrorem (no challange) clauses in wills are not necessary in New York State. Please add!
I, a different person than the one the wrote above, am also clueless about this "not necessary in New York" language. EPTL 3-3.5 (b) describes how and when a condition triggering disinheritance operates and a recent New York Court of Appeals case (Matter of Singer, http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13982625064216663385) indicates that in terrorem clauses can be enforceable. As a result, I am going to update the stub and take out that statement on New York. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.113.40.82 (talk) 03:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)Reply