US Supreme Court really making it's mark

cpal_747 · 09-28-2005, 03:31 AM

Finally the Terri Schiavo furor has died down, the supreme court can get back to what it does best, presiding over puff cases from strippers and their 100 year old dead husbands.

US top court to hear Anna Nicole Smith's appeal

Sep 27, 2005 — WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court said on Tuesday that it would hear Anna Nicole Smith's appeal to restore to the former Playboy model a judge's award of $88.6 million from the estate of her elderly billionaire husband.

The justices agreed to review a U.S. appeals-court ruling that overturned the judge's decision in favor of Smith, the 1993 Playboy Playmate of the Year who recently has hosted her own television show.

Smith was 26 when she married the oil tycoon J. Howard Marshall in 1994. He was 89. They met three years earlier when she was working as a topless dancer. He said he gave her $6 million in gifts in 1994 "in consideration for her marriage to me."

Shortly before his death in 1995, Marshall was one of the wealthiest men in Texas, with assets exceeding $1.6 billion. His death has triggered a long legal battle between Smith and his son, E. Pierce Marshall.

The appeals court ruled last year that a Texas probate court's decision that the son was the oilman's sole heir should stand. It said Smith was not mentioned in Marshall's will or in his trust.

The appeals court ruled that a federal judge in California, who awarded the damages to Smith, lacked jurisdiction over the dispute.

The judge ruled in 2002 that Smith had been entitled to the $88.6 million in compensatory and punitive damages because Marshall's son had engaged in a campaign of deceit and dishonesty to keep her from recovering any money from his father's estate.

Smith's attorneys argued in their Supreme Court appeal that the appeals court was wrong in its ruling, which held that the federal judge could not exercise jurisdiction because Smith's claim was "probate related."

In 1946, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress did not confer on the federal courts jurisdiction to validate a will through probate or to administer an estate.

Attorneys for Marshall's son argued that the appeal should be rejected and said the appeals court's ruling followed Supreme Court precedent.

09-28-2005, 03:31 AM	#1
cpal_747 Mission Accomplished! Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 751	US Supreme Court really making it's mark Finally the Terri Schiavo furor has died down, the supreme court can get back to what it does best, presiding over puff cases from strippers and their 100 year old dead husbands. US top court to hear Anna Nicole Smith's appeal Sep 27, 2005 — WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court said on Tuesday that it would hear Anna Nicole Smith's appeal to restore to the former Playboy model a judge's award of $88.6 million from the estate of her elderly billionaire husband. The justices agreed to review a U.S. appeals-court ruling that overturned the judge's decision in favor of Smith, the 1993 Playboy Playmate of the Year who recently has hosted her own television show. Smith was 26 when she married the oil tycoon J. Howard Marshall in 1994. He was 89. They met three years earlier when she was working as a topless dancer. He said he gave her $6 million in gifts in 1994 "in consideration for her marriage to me." Shortly before his death in 1995, Marshall was one of the wealthiest men in Texas, with assets exceeding $1.6 billion. His death has triggered a long legal battle between Smith and his son, E. Pierce Marshall. The appeals court ruled last year that a Texas probate court's decision that the son was the oilman's sole heir should stand. It said Smith was not mentioned in Marshall's will or in his trust. The appeals court ruled that a federal judge in California, who awarded the damages to Smith, lacked jurisdiction over the dispute. The judge ruled in 2002 that Smith had been entitled to the $88.6 million in compensatory and punitive damages because Marshall's son had engaged in a campaign of deceit and dishonesty to keep her from recovering any money from his father's estate. Smith's attorneys argued in their Supreme Court appeal that the appeals court was wrong in its ruling, which held that the federal judge could not exercise jurisdiction because Smith's claim was "probate related." In 1946, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress did not confer on the federal courts jurisdiction to validate a will through probate or to administer an estate. Attorneys for Marshall's son argued that the appeal should be rejected and said the appeals court's ruling followed Supreme Court precedent. __________________ They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security. - Ben Franklin

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread: