Supreme Court hears about women's rights... - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-28-2005, 01:06 AM   #1
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 06:38 PM
Supreme Court hears about women's rights...

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/washing...a-nicole_x.htm



















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

__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 09-28-2005, 01:50 AM   #2
The Fly
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 174
Local Time: 12:38 AM
Fucking dumbass you are. The reason this is before the SC is the issue of jurisdiction concerning the different levels of courts, nothing else.
__________________

__________________
theblazer is offline  
Old 09-28-2005, 02:09 AM   #3
Sizzlin' Sicilian
Forum Administrator
 
Sicy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 69,297
Local Time: 04:38 PM
Please dont call other members names.
We have rules here and one of them is no personal attacks. Thanks.
__________________
Sicy is offline  
Old 09-28-2005, 08:33 AM   #4
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 06:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 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.
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.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 09-28-2005, 11:45 AM   #5
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 04:38 PM
Re: Supreme Court hears about women's rights...

Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
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:

Quote:
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
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 09-28-2005, 04:21 PM   #6
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 06:38 PM
Re: Re: Supreme Court hears about women's rights...

Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


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.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 09-29-2005, 08:48 AM   #7
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 04:38 PM
Mundane technical issues get Supreme Court justices all hot & bothered.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 09-29-2005, 08:52 AM   #8
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 06:38 PM
Ah the mundane.


__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 05-01-2006, 11:53 AM   #9
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 07:38 PM
(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.
__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com