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 nos.	04-1544
Citations	547 U.S. 293 (more) 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 G. 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, 547 U.S. 293 (2006),^[1] is a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that a federal district court had equal or concurrent jurisdiction with state probate (Will) courts over tort claims under state common law. The case drew an unusual amount of interest because the petitioner was former Playboy Playmate and celebrity Anna Nicole Smith (whose legal name was Vickie Lynn Marshall).

Contents 1 Background 2 Decision 3 See also 4 References 5 External links

[edit] Background

Twelve years prior to his marriage to Smith, J. Howard Marshall II (the deceased) had set up a trust which owned all of his assets and would pass to his son E. Pierce Marshall after his death. Smith had claimed that it was the deceased's intention after marriage to set up a separate trust for her benefit, which would essentially leave her half the appreciation of the assets of the trust during the period of the marriage. Smith further claimed that the son had interefered with the formation of this separate trust. In any event, the deceased neither set up a trust in Smith's favor, nor had he changed the terms of his will to provide for her after his death. However, the deceased did make his existing trust irrevocable soon after his marriage to Smith. As a result, Smith was disinherited. She sued in Texas Probate Court for a share of the estate on several grounds, but her litigation was actively opposed by the son. The primary ground for the son's opposition was that the deceased had an extensive estate plan executed over many decades which expressed his clear wishes. The son also believed the deceased had been quite generous to Smith during the marriage, providing Smith with both expensive gifts and monetary resources.

As the result of receiving a default judgment against her for sexual harassment, Smith petitioned for bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in California. The son made a non-dischargeability claim against Smith based on allegedly libelous statements she made shortly after her husband became deceased accusing the son of frustrating the deceased's intentions to set up a new trust and isolating the deceased. The son had successfully sued Smith's attorneys on the same grounds in Texas State Court. The debtor opposed the claim and countersued the son on the basis that the statements were true. The Bankruptcy Court dismissed the libel claim on summary judgment and did not allow the claim to proceed to trial. After being released from bankruptcy, Smith prosecuted her counterclaim against the son for interfering with the father's intention to set up a trust in favor of Smith.

During the Texas Probate proceeding, the Bankruptcy Court awarded Smith $474 million on the basis of a sanction against the son and deemed the interference to have occurred. The Federal District court subsequently vacated the Bankruptcy award and reduced Smith's award to $88 million.

However, after a five month jury trial in Texas, the Probate Court entered a decision that the deceased's will and trust were valid and his son was the primary beneficiary, rejecting Smith's claim that the son had exerted undue influence on his father or interfered with any trust for Smith. As such, when the matter came before the 9th Circuit appellate court, it rendered the District Court's decision invalid on jurisdictional grounds, declaring that only Texas's Probate Courts had jurisdiction over matters of estate probate.^[2][3]

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.

[edit] Decision

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. On June 25, 2009 the same three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on the remaining appellate issues in the case and submitted the case for consideration and final adjudication.

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 the estates' personal representatives.

[edit] See also

• List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 547

[edit] References

[edit] External links

• "Marshall v. Marshall 9th Circuit Second Oral Argument on Remand". www.ca9.uscourts.gov. 06 2009. http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view_subpage.php?pk_id=0000003654. 
• "Marshall v. Marshall Docket". www.supremecourtus.gov. 05 2005. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/04-1544.htm. 
• "Marshall v. Marshall Questions Presented". www.supremecourtus.gov. 05 2005. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/qp/04-01544qp.pdf. 
• "Marshall v. Marshall Oral Argument Transcript". www.supremecourtus.gov. 02 2006. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/04-1544.pdf. 
• "Marshall v. Marshall 547 U.S. 293 (2006)". www.supremecourtus.gov. 05 2006. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-1544.pdf. 
• "Marshall v. Marshall 392 F. 3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2004)". www.ca9.uscourts.gov. 12 2004. http://www.factweb.net/cgi-data/pdf2/files/12.2004_-_9th_Circuit_Opinion_By_Judge_Beezer_1.pdf. 
• "Marshall v. Marshall 9th Circuit Oral Argument". www.factweb.net. 10 2003. http://www.factweb.net/cgi-data/pdf2/files/02_56002M_Argument.mp3. 
• "Marshall v. Marshall 9th Circuit Oral Argument Transcript". www.factweb.net. 10 2003. http://www.factweb.net/cgi-data/pdf2/files/10.2003_-_9th_Circuit_Oral_Argument_Transcript_1.pdf. 
• "Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293 (2006) Case Materials". The OYEZ Project. 05 2006. http://www.oyez.org/cases/case/?case=2000-2009/2005/2005_04_1544. 
• "Marshall v. Marshall Case History". www.factweb.net. http://www.factweb.net/docs/history. 
• "Synopsis of decision". law.cornell.edu. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-1544.ZS.html. 
• "Marshall v. Marshall Briefs (All)". SCOTUS Blog. 02 2006. http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/briefs-in-marshall-v-marshall/. 
• "Supreme Court sympathetic to former Playmate". msnbc.com. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11601459/. 
• "Supreme Court Sides With Anna Nicole Smith". foxnews.com. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,193789,00.html. 
• Mears, Bill (August 28, 2006). "Anna Nicole Smith wins over justices". CNN.com. http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/05/01/scotus.smith/index.html.