High court hears long-running Anna Nicole Smith case

WASHINGTON — With dozens of photographers arrayed outside, Anna Nicole Smith had her day in the Supreme Court on Tuesday, drawing apparent support from several justices in her quest for the riches of her deceased billionaire husband.

The 38-year-old former Playmate of the Year sat at the rear of a packed chamber as attorneys argued a potentially precedent-setting legal dispute that could determine the ultimate beneficiary to the estate of the late J. Howard Marshall II.

Smith was 26 when she married the 89-year-old oil tycoon in 1994, three years after they met while she was performing as a topless dancer in Houston. Since Marshall's death in 1995, Smith has been locked in a bitter dispute with her late husband's son, E. Pierce Marshall, 67, over an estate estimated at as much as $1.6 billion.

Justice Stephen Breyer seemingly expressed sympathy for Smith's claim, referring to a U.S. district court's finding that the younger Marshall had altered and destroyed documents to keep the fortune out of her hands. Breyer also cited evidence that detectives were employed to keep Smith away from her elderly husband's sickbed.

By agreeing to hear the case, the justices are the fifth court to hear the marathon dispute. A state probate court in Texas ruled against Smith, but a federal bankruptcy court awarded her $449 million. A federal district court reduced the amount to $88 million, and a federal appeals court subsequently overturned the award and sided with Marshall, saying the dispute should be resolved at the state level.

The issue centers on the so-called probate exception that limits — if not prohibits — federal jurisdiction over probate matters normally resolved by state courts. But several of the justices, in their questions to attorneys, suggested that the court may be inclined to re-examine the principle.

"There is vast confusion within the lower courts about the extent of the probate exception," said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Smith's attorney, Kent Richland, said statements from the bench raised his hopes of ultimately prevailing when the justices return a decision by June.

However, Justice David Souter distilled his take on her claims in only a few words: "I just want some money from this guy."

Material from The Associated Press is included in this report.