At issue for the court is a relatively mundane technical issue: when federal courts may hear claims that are also involved state probate proceedings....Two jurisidiction posts in a row for me. Did you know the topic could be so entrancing?! Or is it just me, doing my usual thing of getting excited about jurisdiction when everyone around me thinks it's mind-numbingly dull?
The appellate ruling that federal courts in California never had jurisdiction, erased a lower court finding that Smith was entitled to compensatory and punitive damages because Marshall's son tried to keep her from receiving money from his father's estate.
The Supreme Court filings included only a hint of the nastiness and sleaze from the family fight. The dispute has involved a "a bizarre set of events," justices were told in a filing by G. Eric Brunstad Jr., a Yale Law School professor who represents Marshall's son.
Smith, whose real name is Vickie Lynn Marshall, had received more than $6 million in gifts from her late husband, but was not included in his will, justices were told.
Brunstad said that Smith began her legal fight for her husband's money even before his death.
Smith's attorney, Kent Richland, told justices that Marshall's son "devotes nearly half his brief to manipulating the record to cast (Vickie) in a bad light." Richland said that J. Howard Marshall intended to provide for his wife throughout her life.
"His efforts failed, however, because -- as both lower courts found -- Pierce suppressed or destroyed the trust instrument and stripped Howard of all his assets before his death," Richland wrote.
UPDATE: I gave "The Daily Show" another chance last night and was quite amused to see Jon Stewart run with the idea that the old Justices took the case because ,like the ancient guy Vickie married, they really liked her.
पोस्ट्स
९ टिप्पण्या:
It's the dull one.
But you write about stultifying dullness more interestingly than anyone else in the blogosphere! So maybe that can be your niche. :)
Seriously, write what brings you joy. It's our problem if we aren't interested.
- blonds and lots of money, never dull regardless of jurisdictional concerns....
Ann:
Do you really wonder whether the judges' "elderly" status will color their judgments in this matter or were you just trying to be rhetorically "cute"?
Mark
Let's see...don't care that much about law, never seen American Idol, never been to Madison...hey! Why DO I read this blog? Oh, yeah, it's the writer...and the way the writer writes. Got it!
If only William O. Douglas were still on the court, she'd have at least one vote well in hand.
*LOL*
Or Thurgood Marshall.
Tangentially, I had a dream (nightmare actually) the other night, that ex-President Clinton was appointed to the Supreme Court, in a William Howard Taftesque moment by a Democratic President.
Remind me never to have gorgonzola before sleeping again...
Cheers,
Victoria
Or is it just me, doing my usual thing of getting excited about jurisdiction when everyone around me thinks it's mind-numbingly dull?
Not that, at least in Blogosphere.
It's that few people can comment on it intelligibly, as say, a law professor can.
We're along for the ride on whatever Althouse has that day -- and these are the kinds of posts that make it a centred, legal blog, first and foremost.
Cheers,
Victoria
Victoria: Oh, if only Bill's spouse had a stroke when he took office, like Mrs. Taft! How much better off we'd be!
...and like Taft, he's also lost some weight.
Alas, no possible Bull Mooses to split the Dems are in the wings...Bull Somethings perhaps, but not Mooses.
Perhaps this is a chance for Souter to "leave" Momma back at the motel.
Anna will most certainly be more interested in Stewart though.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा