| Marshall v. Marshall | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued February 28, 2006 Decided May 1, 2006 | |
| Full case name | Vickie Lynn Marshall v. E. Pierce Marshall |
| Docket no. | 04-1544 |
| Citations | 547 U.S. 293 (more) 126 S. Ct. 1735; 2006 U.S. LEXIS 3456 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Marshall v. Marshall (In re Marshall) 253 B.R. 550 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2001); 257 B.R. 35 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2001); affirmed in part, vacated and remanded, 264 B.R. 609 (C.D. Cal. 2000); 271 B.R. 858 (C.D. Cal. 2001); 273 B.R. 822 (Bankr. C.D. Cal 2002); 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) |
| Subsequent | On remand, 403 B.R. 668 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2009); 600 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2010); affirmed, Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. 462 (2011). |
| 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 | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Ginsburg, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Breyer, Alito |
| Concurrence | Stevens (in judgment) |
| Laws applied | |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 28 U.S.C. § 1334 | |
Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293 (2006), 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 Playboy Playmate and celebrity Anna Nicole Smith (whose legal name was Vickie Lynn Marshall). Smith won the case, but unsolved issues regarding her inheritance eventually led to another Supreme Court case, Stern v. Marshall. She died before that case was decided.