Of All the Cases the Court Could Take
Conventional wisdom has it that appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States is too unlikely to be treated as a viable possibility. Read this, and then tell me whether the truth is really that simple:
Stern v. Marshall, No. 10-179. Was the late Anna Nicole Smith's counterclaim for tortious interference with her expectancy of a $300 million gift or inheritance sufficiently related to her son-in-law's defamation claim against her in her bankruptcy proceeding to constitute a "core proceeding" within the bankruptcy court's jurisdiction as construed in Northern Pipeline Constr. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50 (1982)?That’s right. The Supreme Court granted review in 14 cases today, and among them them is an appeal from the shenanigans surrounding Anna Nicole Smith. Again.
Labels: SCOTUS
posted by Patrick Bageant at 12:37 PM
4 Comments:
I summered at a firm that worked on the this case, and the first USSC appeal. The crazy thing about this case is that almost everyone who was a party to the original action is dead -- not only Anna Nicole and her deceased husband, J. Howard Marshall, but also also his son, J. Pierce Marshall, who was the one who was fighting with ANS over the elder Marshall's estate. And yet this case has gone to the Supreme Court TWICE. A partner at the firm joked that the case should be re-titled Baby v. Pile of Money.
Sounds like a fucking laugh riot over there.
Anyone know the deal with the travel-sized bottles of bourbon that were in torts this morning? They had labels saying "You've been gunned." The liquor is appreciated, but the message unclear.
1:51, gun club.
Post a Comment
<< Home