Editing Anna Nicole Smith (section)

===Court cases and bankruptcy===
{{see also|Marshall v. Marshall{{!}}''Marshall v. Marshall''|Stern v. Marshall{{!}}''Stern v. Marshall''}}
In October 1994, Smith initiated a $5 million lawsuit against the ''[[New York (magazine)|New York]]'' magazine, claiming that she did not authorize the use of her photo on the cover of its magazine titled "White Trash Nation" and that the article damaged her reputation. The lawsuit was settled.<ref>{{cite journal |url=https://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2007/02/anna_nicole_and_new_york_a_nol_1.html |title=Anna Nicole and ''New York'': A No-Love-Lost Story – Daily Intelligencer |journal=[[New York (magazine)|New York]] |date=February 9, 2007 |access-date=June 23, 2016 |archive-date=April 27, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160427084117/http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2007/02/anna_nicole_and_new_york_a_nol_1.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

Even though Smith was not in Marshall's [[Will and testament|will]], she claimed that in return for marriage, Marshall verbally promised her half of his [[Estate (law)|estate]], which primarily consisted of a 16% interest in [[Koch Industries]], then worth $1.6&nbsp;billion. Smith's stepson [[E. Pierce Marshall]] disputed the claim. Smith temporarily joined forces with J.&nbsp;Howard's other son, [[J. Howard Marshall III]], who was disowned after attempting to take control of Koch Industries. Howard III also claimed that his father had verbally promised him a portion of the estate; like Smith, Howard III was also left out of his father's will.<ref>{{cite news |last=Grossberg |first=Josh |url=http://www.eonline.com/news/41279/probate-jury-disses-anna-nicole |title=Probate Jury Disses Anna Nicole |website=[[E! Online]] |date=March 8, 2001 |access-date=February 23, 2018 |archive-date=May 30, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240530081652/https://www.eonline.com/news/41279/probate-jury-disses-anna-nicole |url-status=live }}</ref>

In 1996, Smith filed for [[bankruptcy]] in [[California]] as a result of an $850,000 [[default judgment]] against her for the [[sexual harassment]] of a nanny who cared for her son.<ref name=supreme/> Since any money potentially due to her from the Marshall estate was part of her potential assets, the bankruptcy court involved itself in the matter.<ref name=supreme>{{cite news |title=Anna Nicole Smith's Supreme Fight |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/28/AR2006022800142_pf.html |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |last=Lane |first=Charles |author-link=Charles Lane (journalist) |date=March 1, 2006 |access-date=September 20, 2017 |archive-date=August 16, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170816111915/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/28/AR2006022800142_pf.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

In September 2000, a [[Los Angeles]] bankruptcy judge awarded Smith $449,754,134.00, the amount that Marshall's interest in Koch Industries appreciated during their marriage.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2000-sep-28-me-28008-story.html |title=Judge Awards Guess Model $450 Million of Oil Estate |first=ANN W. |last=O'NEILL |work=[[Los Angeles Times]] |date=September 28, 2000 |access-date=February 21, 2020 |archive-date=August 17, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180817171441/http://articles.latimes.com/2000/sep/28/local/me-28008 |url-status=live }}</ref> However, in July 2001, Houston judge Mike Wood affirmed the jury's findings in the probate case by ruling that Smith was entitled to nothing. The judge ordered Smith to pay over $1&nbsp;million to cover the legal costs and expenses of E.&nbsp;Pierce Marshall. The conflict between the Texas probate court and California bankruptcy court judgments forced the matter into [[United States district court|federal court]].<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Judge-orders-Anna-Nicole-Smith-to-pay-up-2051825.php |title=Judge Orders Anna Nicole to Pay Up |first=Janette |last=Rodrigues |work=[[Houston Chronicle]] |date=July 10, 2001 |access-date=February 23, 2018 |archive-date=February 23, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180223171338/https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Judge-orders-Anna-Nicole-Smith-to-pay-up-2051825.php |url-status=live }}</ref>

In March 2002, a federal judge vacated the California bankruptcy court's ruling and issued a new ruling that reduced the award to $88&nbsp;million. On December 30, 2004, a three-judge panel of the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit]] reversed that decision on the grounds that the federal courts lacked jurisdiction to overrule the probate court's decision.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.standard.co.uk/showbiz/anna-nicole-smith-loses-husbands-millions-7198075.html |title=Anna Nicole Smith loses husband's millions |first=Paul |last=Sims |work=[[London Evening Standard]] |date=December 31, 2004}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.leagle.com/decision/20041510392f3d111811401 |title=''In re Marshall'', 392 F.3d 1118, 1124–1131 |publisher=[[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit]] |date=December 30, 2004 |access-date=February 24, 2018 |archive-date=February 25, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180225064941/https://www.leagle.com/decision/20041510392f3d111811401 |url-status=live }}</ref>

In September 2005, the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] decided to hear the appeal of that decision. The [[George W. Bush administration]] directed [[Paul Clement]], the [[United States Solicitor General]], to intercede on Smith's behalf in the interest of expanding federal court jurisdiction over state [[probate]] disputes.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna10606237 |title=White house lends a hand to Anna Nicole |agency=[[Associated Press]] |work=[[NBC News]] |date=December 27, 2005 |access-date=February 24, 2018 |archive-date=October 23, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181023010322/http://www.nbcnews.com/id/10606237/ns/politics/t/white-house-lends-hand-anna-nicole/ |url-status=live }}</ref> On May 1, 2006, the Supreme Court unanimously decided in favor of Smith. Justice [[Ruth Bader Ginsburg]] wrote the opinion. The decision did not give Smith a portion of her husband's estate, but affirmed her right to pursue a share of it in federal court.<ref name=nytmay>{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/01/washington/01cnd-smith.html |title=Anna Nicole Smith Wins Supreme Court Case |first=David |last=Stout |work=[[The New York Times]] |date=May 1, 2006 |access-date=February 21, 2017 |archive-date=January 7, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170107234212/http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/01/washington/01cnd-smith.html |url-status=live }}{{subscription required}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/SupremeCourt/story?id=1911507 |title=Anna Nicole Smith Wins One at Supreme Court |first=ARIANE |last=DE VOGUE |work=[[ABC News (United States)|ABC News]] |date=May 1, 2006 |access-date=June 27, 2020 |archive-date=January 20, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220120042358/https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/SupremeCourt/story?id=1911507 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.foxnews.com/story/anna-nicole-smith-wins-supreme-court-appeal |title=Anna Nicole Smith Wins Supreme Court Appeal |first=Jane |last=Roh |work=[[Fox News]] |date=May 1, 2006 |access-date=February 24, 2018 |archive-date=May 30, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240530081707/https://www.foxnews.com/story/anna-nicole-smith-wins-supreme-court-appeal |url-status=live }}</ref>

On June 20, 2006, E. Pierce Marshall died at age 67 from an [[infection]].<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.upi.com/E-Pierce-Marshall-dies-suddenly/42841151152625/ |title=E. Pierce Marshall dies suddenly |work=[[United Press International]] |date=June 24, 2006 |access-date=February 24, 2018 |archive-date=February 25, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180225064824/https://www.upi.com/E-Pierce-Marshall-dies-suddenly/42841151152625/ |url-status=live }}</ref> His widow and estate executrix [[Elaine Tettemer Marshall]], pursued the case on behalf of his estate. After Smith's death in 2007, the case continued on behalf of Smith's infant daughter, [[Dannielynn Birkhead]].<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/09/us/09cnd-smith.html |title=Cause of Anna Nicole Smith's Death Uncertain |first=Maria |last=Newman |work=The New York Times |date=February 9, 2007 |access-date=February 21, 2017 |archive-date=August 24, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170824222300/http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/09/us/09cnd-smith.html |url-status=live }}{{subscription required}}</ref> In March 2010, an appeals court upheld the verdict barring Smith from the estate.<ref>{{cite news |title=Anna Nicole Smith's little girl Dannielynn Birkhead loses will battle |url=https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/03/21/anna-nicole-smith-s-little-girl-dannielynn-birkhead-loses-will-battle-115875-22126931/ |work=[[Daily Mirror]] |date=March 21, 2010 |access-date=April 5, 2018 |archive-date=January 30, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110130100650/http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/03/21/anna-nicole-smith-s-little-girl-dannielynn-birkhead-loses-will-battle-115875-22126931/ |url-status=live }}</ref> Following the decision, lawyers for Smith's estate appealed the decision to the entire Ninth Circuit. On May 6, 2010, the appeal was denied.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://archive.boston.com/ae/celebrity/articles/2010/05/06/court_wont_reconsider_anna_nicole_smith_ruling/ |title=Court won't reconsider Anna Nicole Smith ruling |agency=[[Associated Press]] |newspaper=[[The Boston Globe]] |date=May 6, 2010 |access-date=February 24, 2018 |archive-date=May 30, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240530081548/http://archive.boston.com/ae/celebrity/articles/2010/05/06/court_wont_reconsider_anna_nicole_smith_ruling/ |url-status=live }}</ref> 

In June 2011, in the case of ''[[Stern v. Marshall]]'', the Supreme Court issued a ruling against Smith's estate, stating that the California bankruptcy court decision that gave her estate $475&nbsp;million was made without [[subject-matter jurisdiction]]. The court agreed with the ruling of the Ninth Circuit that a bankruptcy court could not make a decision on an issue outside bankruptcy law.<ref>{{cite news |title=Supreme Court Rules Against Anna Nicole Smith's Estate |url=https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2011/06/23/137366848/supreme-court-rules-against-anna-nicole-smiths-estate |first=MARK |last=MEMMOTT |work=[[NPR]] |date=June 23, 2011 |access-date=February 24, 2018 |archive-date=February 25, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180225065034/https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2011/06/23/137366848/supreme-court-rules-against-anna-nicole-smiths-estate |url-status=live }}</ref> In August 2014, [[David O. Carter]], a federal U.S. District Court judge in [[Orange County, California]], rejected efforts to obtain about $44&nbsp;million from the J.&nbsp;Howard Marshall estate.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.nbcdfw.com/entertainment/entertainment-news/Anna-Nicole-Smith-Estate-Howard-K-Stern-J-Howard-Marshall-271940261.html |title=Anna Nicole Smith's Estate Loses Bid for Millions |agency=[[Associated Press]] |work=[[NBC]] |date=August 20, 2014 |access-date=February 24, 2018 |archive-date=February 24, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180224232712/https://www.nbcdfw.com/entertainment/entertainment-news/Anna-Nicole-Smith-Estate-Howard-K-Stern-J-Howard-Marshall-271940261.html |url-status=live }}</ref>