in all relevant respects to Arkansas’s act, providing, “Any person interested under a ... will ... may have determined any question of ... validity arising under the instrument ... and obtain a declaration of rights, status, or other legal relations thereunder.” See id. at 1070 n. 1. The district court found that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case under Sutton v. English, 246 U.S. 199, 251, 337 N.E.2d 642, 645 (Ohio Ct.App.1974) (“[Djespite the use of the word ‘validity’ in [the declaratory judgment act], the exclusive method of challenging a will alleged to be invalid on the ground of undue influence is by a will contest action.”)); Martin v. Kenworthy, 92 Or .2d 664, 665 (1952) (North Carolina) (same). But see In re Estate of Boote, 198 S.W.3d 699, 715 (Tenn.Ct.App.2005) (<HOLDING>); Harkins v. Crews, 907 S.W.2d 51, 57
holding that where the question to be resolved in the declaratory judgment action will be decided in a pending action it is inappropriate to grant a declaratory judgment holding jeopardy had not attached because the district court was without power to enter a judgment of conviction in a pretrial proceeding holding that an action under the illinois declaratory judgment act to void a will must be construed as a will contest that is governed by the laws controlling such contests in probate proceedings holding that a plaintiffs declaratory judgment petition with a copy of the third codicil attached was sufficient to initiate a will contest in a probate proceeding holding that the determination by the probate court in the summary proceeding provided for by section 211516 revised code that assets should be included in an estate makes the question of title res judicata as between all parties to the proceeding but the judgment of the probate court may be attacked in a subsequent action by other interested persons who were not parties to the proceeding in probate court