Supreme Court hears Anna Nicole Smith case

WASHINGTON- Former Playmate of the Year Anna Nicole Smith got her U.S. Supreme Court hearing on Tuesday, when her lawyer argued she should collect millions of dollars she claims her late Texas oil tycoon husband had promised her.
At one point during the hour-long arguments, the 38-year old blond widow, dressed in black and sitting in the spectator section, became emotional and started crying, a witness and her lawyer said.
Smith, who formerly also has hosted her own reality television show, did not talk to the crush of reporters, photographers and camera crews when she entered and left the Supreme Court building.
The issue before the justices in the long-running legal battle is to review when federal courts can hear claims that are also involved in state probate hearings.
The justices seemed receptive to arguments by Smith's lawyer that federal courts have jurisdiction to consider her claims.
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, with assets estimated at more than $2.9 billion. His death in 1995 has triggered a long legal battle between Smith and his son, E. Pierce Marshall.
The court battle played out in two different states before reaching the Supreme Court.
A state probate court in Texas ruled that the 67-year-old son, who also attended the Supreme Court arguments, was entitled to his father's estate.
But a federal bankruptcy judge in California ruled in favor of Smith and awarded her $474 million because of her claims the son had interfered with the inheritance she was supposed to receive.
A federal judge then cut the award to Smith to $88 million, but a U.S. appeals court ruled that Smith was entitled to nothing because federal courts lack jurisdiction in probate disputes.
Justice David Souter during the arguments summarized Smith's claim as,

"Just give me the money I would have had."

Justice Stephen Breyer said Smith's claim was that her husband intended to give her this gift and that three pages of his living trust document had been altered after his death. "It's quite a story," he exclaimed.
Smith's lawyer, Kent Richland of Los Angeles, was supported by U.S. Justice Department attorney Deanna Maynard, who argued that the appeals court ruling in the case swept too broadly.
G. Eric Brunstad, arguing on behalf of the son, said Smith's federal claims amounted to an "end-run" around the Texas probate proceeding.
But Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called it an "extraordinary thing" for him to claim that Smith could not bring a related claim in federal court. "That's just not the way our system works," she said.
Justice Antonin Scalia said of Smith's claims, "That to me is something quite different than probating the will."
And Chief Justice John Roberts compared Smith's claims with a 1946 Supreme Court ruling that upheld federal court jurisdiction over a lawsuit to determine rights to property at issue in a probate proceeding.
Of the nine Supreme Court members, only Justice Clarence( pubic hair in the Coke) Thomas, who normally is silent during arguments, and new Justice Samuel (I'm all about abortion cases) Alito did not ask any questions.
After the arguments, E. Pierce Marshall said in a statement, "A decision in our favor by the Supreme Court will go a long way toward finally putting an end to this frivolous lawsuit with claims that are totally fabricated."
A ruling is expected by the end of June.