Supreme Court hears about women's rights...

[BVS]

Supreme Court agrees to hear Anna Nicole Smith case
By Joan Biskupic, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — The dispute involves Anna Nicole Smith, a former Playboy model who married an elderly Texas oilman she had met while she was working as a stripper. The stakes are $88.5 million from the late tycoon's estate. And it's all coming soon to the august chambers of the Supreme Court.

The high court agreed Tuesday to hear an appeal by television reality star Smith in her fight with the family of J. Howard Marshall, whom she married in 1994. Smith, Playboy's 1993 Playmate of the Year, was 26 at the time; Marshall was 89.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-09-27-anna-nicole_x.htm



















I'm glad we have time to tackle the hard issues.

 

[theblazer]

Fucking dumbass you are. The reason this is before the SC is the issue of jurisdiction concerning the different levels of courts, nothing else.

 

[Sicy]

Please dont call other members names.
We have rules here and one of them is no personal attacks. Thanks.

 

[BVS]

Fucking dumbass you are. The reason this is before the SC is the issue of jurisdiction concerning the different levels of courts, nothing else.

Wow another intelligent post by theblazer, I've never seen you bring anything worth discussion to any thread in FYM. But the name calling is a new low, usually you reserve that towards larger groups rather than just one individual.

The thread was meant to be taken light heartedly. Hence the wink! The idea of the SC agreeing to hear such a soap opera case amuses me.

See you next month when you decide to come in and insult people.

 

[nbcrusader]

I'm glad we have time to tackle the hard issues.

What theBlazer so inartfully said was that the question of law actaully has broad implications.

From the CNN article:

At issue for the court is a relatively mundane technical issue: when federal courts may hear claims that are also involved state probate proceedings.

I guess the tone was confused between the and the

 

[BVS]

Re: Re: Supreme Court hears about women's rights...

What theBlazer so inartfully said was that the question of law actaully has broad implications.

I understand that, but just looking at some of the cases passed over in the last few years this one seems a little absurd to be spending time on.

 

[nbcrusader]

Mundane technical issues get Supreme Court justices all hot & bothered.

 

[BVS]

Ah the mundane.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

(Reuters) Former Playmate of the Year Anna Nicole Smith won from the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday a new chance to collect millions of dollars she claims her late Texas oil tycoon husband promised her.

The justices unanimously overturned an appeals court ruling that the blond widow was entitled to nothing because federal courts lacked jurisdiction to hear claims that are also involved in state probate hearings.

The high court sent the case back to the federal appeals court in California for more proceedings in the long-running legal battle involving the former Playboy centerfold who also had her own reality television show.

Smith was 26 when she married oil tycoon J. Howard Marshall in 1994. He was 89. They met three years earlier when she was working as a topless dancer in Houston.

Marshall was one of the wealthiest men in Texas, worth more than an estimated $1.6 billion. His death in 1995, after 14 months of marriage, triggered a legal battle between Smith and his son, E. Pierce Marshall.

She claimed that her husband promised her half of his estate. The son said the more than $6 million in gifts she received in 1994 was all his father wanted her to get.

In Texas, a state probate court ruled that E. Pierce Marshall was entitled to his father's estate.

But in California, a federal bankruptcy judge ruled for Smith and awarded her $474 million because of her claims the son had interfered with the inheritance she was supposed to receive.

A federal district court judge then cut Smith's award to $88 million. But the appeals court ruled she was entitled to nothing because federal courts lack jurisdiction in probate disputes.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in the ruling for the Supreme Court that the appeals court was wrong and the district court properly asserted jurisdiction over Smith's claims against the son.