Supreme Court to hear landmark case
In what will prove to be the most important case the U.S. Supreme Court has dealt with in the last twenty years, the Court has granted certiorari to Vickie Lynn Marshall v. E. Pierce Marshall, 04-1544 (2004) [link goes to Ninth Circuit Court's opinion]. But you might know Vickie Lynn Marshall better by her stage name, "Anna Nicole Smith." So, I guess this case won't be that important at all. Never mind.
And, as you probably guessed, E. Pierce Marshall is the son of J. Howard Marshall, II, the man she married a year before he died in 1995 at age 89. For ten years, Anna Nicole Smith has fought with Marshall's son over whether or not she is entitled to over $400 million of her late husband's fortune. Marshall fils contends that she is not in the will and therefore doesn't get any money.
The Supreme Court, though, will not be deciding who gets the money. In fact, nothing about this case is interesting. There's no money, no glamour, no fame or fortune. At issue is whether or not a federal court has jurisdiction to hear claims from state probate courts. The case began in a Texas bankruptcy court, then to the U.S. bankruptcy court, then to a U.S. District Court in California before ending up at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, headquartered in San Francisco. (Shouldn't the case have gone to the Fifth Circuit Court, which has jurisdiction over Texas?)
So why did this case start in bankruptcy court? Turns out that Anna Nicole Smith was going bankrupt in California at the same time that probate proceedings were going on in Texas. The bankruptcy court in Texas awarded her $474 million, but the U.S. District Court brought that down to $89 million. In 2004, the Ninth Circuit Court ruled that federal courts in California had no jurisdiction over the case and declared that Smith should receive no money, which brings us to the question at issue for the U.S. Supreme Court: did the U.S. District Court in California have the jurisdiction to consider a claim from the Texas probate court?
Now, I love the Supreme Court. But seriously. Bankruptcy and probate are boring unless there are vampires involved. And not even Anna Nicole Smith can spice up a probate case. Now, if she were a vampire, then I'd have a fighting chance of staying awake. Come on, take some First Amendment cases! The Court's 2004 term was super-awesome and was probably one of their most exciting ever. I don't expect the 2005 term to be as nail-biting, but it better not be a snoozer. Oh, and if you're shopping for my birthday, sentencing guidelines cases put me to sleep, too.