Marshall v. Marshall

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 no.	04-1544
Case history
Prior	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 P. Stevens · Antonin Scalia Anthony Kennedy · David Souter Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito
Case opinions
Majority	Ginsburg, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Breyer, Alito
Concurrence	Stevens
Laws applied
28 U.S.C. § 1331, 28 U.S.C. § 1334

Marshall v. Marshall, 04-1544 (2006), 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 plaintiff 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. But federal judges 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.

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

Oral arguments were heard in the case on February 28, 2006. The Court unanimously decided in Nicole Smith's (the Plaintiff's) favor, on May 1, 2006. The case has been remanded to the 9th Circuit to decide the remaining issues.

It is unclear what will happen to the case in light of the deaths of Respondent E. Pierce Marshall on June 20 2006 and Petitioner Anna Nicole Smith on February 8 2007.

External links

• "Synopsis of decision". law.cornell.edu. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |coauthors= (help)
• "Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. ___ (2006)". The OYEZ Project. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |coauthors= (help)
• "Supreme Court sympathetic to former Playmate". msnbc.com. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |coauthors= (help)
• "Supreme Court Sides With Anna Nicole Smith". foxnews.com. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |coauthors= (help)
• Mears, Bill (2006). "Anna Nicole Smith wins over justices". CNN.com. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• "Marshall v. Marshall Brief for the Petitioner". SCOTUS. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |coauthors= (help)