Marshall v. Marshall

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is related to a current event.
For the main article on the event, see Anna Nicole Smith.
Information may change rapidly as the event progresses.

This article documents an ongoing lawsuit.
Information may change rapidly as the suit progresses.

Marshall v. Marshall

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued February 28, 2006
Decided May 1, 2006


Full case name:	Vickie Lynn Marshall v. E. Pierce Marshall

Docket #:	04-1544

Citations:	547 U.S. ___; 2006 U.S. LEXIS 3456

Prior history:	Judgment for debtor on counterclaim in adversary proceeding, Marshall v. Marshall (In re Marshall) 253 B.R. 550 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2001); judgment for debtor, injunction denied, 257 B.R. 35 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2001); affirmed in part, vacated and remanded, 264 B.R. 609 (C.D. Cal. 2000); summary judgment to plaintiff denied, 271 B.R. 858 (C.D. Cal. 2001); discharge of claim against debtor granted, 273 B.R. 822 (Bankr. C.D. Cal 2002); judgment for debtor on counterclaims, 275 B.R. 5 (C.D. Cal. 2002); vacated and remanded, 392 F. 3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2004); cert. granted, 126 S. Ct. 35 (2005)

Holding

Jurisdiction was properly asserted by a Federal District Court over a widow debtor's counterclaim for tortious interference with a gift, because the judicially crafted "probate exception" to Federal court jurisdiction did not apply. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded.

Court membership

Chief Justice: John Roberts
Associate Justices: John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito

Case opinions

Majority by: Ginsburg
Joined by: Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Breyer, Alito
Concurrence by: Stevens

Laws applied

28 U.S.C. § 1331, 28 U.S.C. § 1334

Marshall v. Marshall, 04-1544 (2006),^[1] is a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that a federal district court had equal jurisdiction with state probate (will) courts over tort claims under state law. The case drew an unusual amount of interest because the Petitioner was former Playboy Playmate and controversial celebrity Anna Nicole Smith (legal name Vickie Lynn Marshall).

Smith lost in her attempt to claim part of the estate in a Texas probate court against Marshall's son, E. Pierce Marshall. However, a bankruptcy judge in California, brought into the case in 1996 when Smith filed for bankruptcy under federal law in that state, awarded Smith $474 million. A Federal District court reduced Smith's award to $88 million. The 9th Circuit appellate court threw out the District Court decision, declaring that only Texas's courts have jurisdiction.^[2]

The Bush administration, which wanted to limit exceptions to federal jurisdiction in state probate related matters, instructed the United States Solicitor General to submit a brief on the side of the petitioner.

On February 28, 2006, oral arguments were heard in the case. The United States Supreme Court unanimously decided the case in favor of the Petitioner, Anna Nicole Smith, regarding the question of federal jurisdiction on May 1, 2006. The case has been remanded to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to decide the remaining appellate issues.

In light of the deaths of Respondent E. Pierce Marshall on June 20, 2006 and Petitioner Anna Nicole Smith on February 8, 2007, the case will likely be handled by estate representatives.