Marshall v. Marshall, U.S., 126 S.Ct. 1735 (2006)
Within weeks after J. Howard's death on August 4, 1995, Smith squared off against his son, E. Pierce Marshall, for half of her late husband's US$1.6 billion estate. Smith joined forces with J. Howard's other son, James Howard Marshall III, whom the elder Howard had disowned. Both claimed J. Howard verbally promised substantial gifts; like Smith, Howard III was formally left out of J. Howard's will, which he updated weeks after their marriage.[2] The case has gone on for more than a decade, producing a highly publicized court battle in Texas and several judicial decisions that have gone both for and against Smith in that time.
In 1995 the executor of Howard's estate initiated probate proceedings in Louisiana state court, but the Louisiana court dismissed the proceeding for lack of jurisdiction. In Jan. 1996 the executor then initiated proceedings in Texas state probate court. At the same time, Smith initiated federal bankruptcy proceedings in California (where she was living), alleging that Pierce's interference with a trust that Howard had promised her was preventing her from meeting financial obligations. Pierce challenged Smith's assertions in the bankruptcy proceeding and alleged that such assertions amounted to defamation. The bankruptcy court found that Pierce had indeed interfered with a trust Howard intended to give to Smith, and awarded Smith $449 million (i.e., entered a verdict against Pierce in the amount of $449 million). At the same time, Smith made the same tortious interference claim in the probate proceeding still ongoing in Texas state court, but dropped the claim upon the federal bankruptcy court's decision. Without hearing the tort claim, the jury in the Texas state probate court ruled that Howard's will was valid (recall that Smith was not mentioned in the will, and in fact was not challenging the will; she was asserting that Pierce was interfering with a gift that Howard left Smith, separate from his will). Pierce then sought United States district court review of the Bankruptcy court decision. Pierce argued that the federal bankruptcy court did not have jurisdiction over the case based on the so-called "probate exception," a common law theory that says a federal court that otherwise has proper jurisdiction over a case should decline to exercise it in cases dealing with probate-related matters. The district court found that the exception did not reach Smith's case, because her complaint did not regard Howard's will and therefore was not a probate matter; rather it was a claim in tort, specifically that Pierce had tortiously interfered with a gift that Howard intended to give to Smith. [Compare tort and probate]. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's findings, but lowered the damage award. However, based on the district court's finding of Pierce's "willfullness, maliciousness, and fraud," it still awarded Smith roughly $44 million in compensatory damages and roughly the same amount in punitive damages. Pierce then appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit overruled the District Court, holding that the district court should have applied the probate exception (i.e., declined to take jurisdiction of the case). Smith appealed, and the U.S. Supreme Court decided in September of 2005 to hear the appeal of that decision. The Bush Administration subsequently directed the Solicitor General to intercede on Smith's behalf out of an interest in the federal court jurisdictional question.[3] After months of waiting, Smith and her step-son Pierce learned of the Supreme Court's decision on May 1, 2006. The justices unanimously decided in favor of Smith. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the majority opinion, stating that the 9th Circuit read the "probate exception" too broadly. (See Marshall v. Marshall.) It is expected that the long-running legal drama will not end any time soon, because many remaining issues need to be decided upon remand. On June 20, 2006, E. Pierce Marshall died at the age of 67 after an infection. [Citation: Marshall v. Marshall, __ U.S. __, 126 S.Ct. 1735 (2006)]
The case has been remanded to the 9th Circuit to adjudicate the remaining appellate issues not previously reached.
14 months after they were married Marshall died and she engaged in a legal lawsuit over Marshall's estate with E. Pierce Marshall over her late husband's $1.6 Billion estate. 
