The Volokh Conspiracy

Five or ten years ago, what odds would anyone have given me that I would ever write the phrase "Anna Nicole Smith in the Supreme Court"?

Nonetheless, as many are surely aware, the Anna Nicole Smith bankruptcy case is indeed in the Supreme Court.

The excellent Bankruptcy Litigation Blog has promised wall-to-wall coverage of the case. Steve Jakubowski (what is it with we Poles and bankruptcy law?) has a post up on the Amicus brief filed by the United States, supporting Ms. Smith (known in the case as Marshall, after her late husband). I'm sure we all remember the particular facts surrounding Ms. Smith's marriage to the late Mr. Marshall that eventually gave rise to this case.

Nothwithstanding the personal flamboyance of the Petitioner in the case, the issue is actually a very technical one of the scope of the "probate exception" to federal jurisdiction as it applies in bankruptcy proceedings. It is nonetheless quite an interesting case and Steve's bankruptcy litigation blog will be the place to go to follow it.

Related Posts (on one page):

Will Anna Nicole's Estate Win Her Case?--
Anna Nicole Smith Wins This Round of Her Case.--
Anna Nicole Smith Has Her Day in (the US Supreme) Court.--
More on Anna Nicole in SCOTUS:
Anna Nicole Smith in the Supreme Court:

(link)

Justin Levine:

I suspect that aspects of the federalism debate will subtly creep into this case (i.e., is it right for a federal bankruptcy court in California to usurp decisions already made or in progress at a Texas state court deciding probate issues.).

<b>Prediction:</b> Anna Nicole loses her millions out of respect for the decision of Texas state court (with Chief Justice Roberts voting in the majority).

11.23.2005 2:57pm

BobNelson (mail):

Gosh, what happened to this administration's strong pro-marriage stance? Shouldn't the Justice Department issue some sort of strong amicus brief for Anna Nicole?

11.23.2005 5:10pm

Joshua:

BobNelson: The Justice Department's amicus brief is in support of Anna Nicole's position.

11.23.2005 9:54pm

Chico's Bail Bonds (mail):

This reminds me of the Bill O'Rielly show when the Supreme Court first granted cert. Someone was explaining the case to him on air. Apparently, this was the first time O'Rielly actually learned what the case was about.

The only thing O'Rielly picked up on was that a federal judge in California helped a dopey celebrity by going against the decision of a Texas jury. O'Rielly immediately went on a diatribe on how obviously wrong the California federal judge was, and how this was another example of a liberal activist judge arrogantly thwarting the law and the common Joe. I was certainly "impressed" by O'Rielly. After all, lesser people who have spent their lives studying the law have all sorts of trouble finding the right way to decide this case, but Bill did it in 15 seconds!

Of course, now that the Bush administration thinks the case should come out in Anna Nicole Smith's favor, I'm sure O'Rielly will tell us anyone who says differenlty is a terrorist. In conclusion, Bill O'Rielly is a pompous idiot. Index key word: "blatantly obvious."

11.24.2005 1:51pm

TdHUjDCWBt (mail) (www):

3.7.2006 4:45am

GerWEnyzHD (mail) (www):

3.7.2006 5:01am

FyzhjpfPnX (mail) (www):

zRPyuIfYqi (mail) (www):

3.7.2006 9:22am

dhebXMBLiZ (mail) (www):

3.14.2006 7:54am

Contact

Subscribe

Features

Stuff from us

Blogroll

Archives