The justices were unanimous in finding that Ms. Smith, who is also known as Vickie Lynn Marshall, could pursue her claim in federal court. The justices overturned a ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which had held that the case really belonged in Texas state probate court.
Yes, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the high court, the "probate exception" generally gives state probate courts authority to oversee wills and the administration of estates.
But she wrote, Ms. Smith has accused her late husband's son of wrongdoing against her, a factor that makes the case more than just a probate matter.
"Trial courts, both federal and state, often address conduct of the kind Vickie alleges," Justice Ginsburg wrote. Furthermore, she wrote, state probate courts possess "no special proficiency" in handling issues like the ones raised in Marshall v. Marshall, No. 04-1544.
Those issues, Justice Ginsburg recounted, include the young widow's allegations that E. Pierce Marshall, son of the tycoon J. Howard Marshall II, tried to isolate the old man, "surrounding him with hired guards" to prevent personal contact between husband and wife, and thus deprive her of what she had been promised: part of an estate estimated as high as $1.6 billion.
Justice Ginsburg did not mention other elements of the case which, while perhaps not of deep interest to legal scholars, have stirred some interest among nonlawyers, and maybe even some members of the bar.
J. Howard Marshall II was 89 and Ms. Smith, the 1992 Playmate of the Year and a model for jeans commercials, was 26 when they married on June 27, 1994, at a Houston drive-in wedding chapel after a two-year courtship. The marriage was his third and her second. Mr. Marshall paid for his wife's acting lessons and lavished gifts upon her.
The marriage ended with Mr. Marshall's death on Aug. 4, 1995, by which time the stage had been set for a showdown between the widow and E. Pierce Marshall, who had worried — rightly, it seems — that his father would be as generous to his young wife as he had been to a mistress, who died in 1990 while undergoing cosmetic surgery.
Soon afterward, according to probate court records, the elder Mr. Marshall became enchanted with Ms. Smith when he saw her dancing at a Houston cabaret. Romance bloomed, as she affectionately nicknamed him "Paw Paw."
The young widow has maintained that her husband promised her half his estate as an inducement to wed him. But while he expressed his adoration in life with gifts and "significant sums of money," Justice Ginsburg noted, the elder Mr. Marshall did not include anything in his will for his wife, who has maintained that her husband intended to provide for her through a gift in the form of a "catch-all" trust.
E. Pierce Marshall was the ultimate beneficiary of his father's estate plan, which consisted of a living trust and a will under which all of his father's assets not already included in the trust were to be transferred to the trust upon his death.
The competing claims set off proceedings in both state and federal courts. In 1996, while the estate was subject to state probate proceedings in Texas, the widow filed for bankruptcy in federal bankruptcy court in California. In so doing, she accused E. Pierce Marshall of scheming to deny her an inheritance.
Mr. Marshall, in turn, accused her of defaming him with public accusations that he had resorted to fraud and other wrongdoing to get his father's money.
The bankruptcy court sided with Ms. Smith, awarding her some $475 million, an amount later slashed to about $44 million (plus an equal amount in punitive damages) by a federal district court. But the Ninth Circuit overturned the findings in her favor, ruling that the state probate court was the proper arena.
A probate court jury ruled in March 2001 that she was entitled to nothing, and that J. Howard Marshall II had indeed named E. Pierce Marshall as his sole heir. (The verdict was a defeat as well for J. Howard Marshall III, E. Pierce's older brother; the jury rejected his claim that he had an oral agreement with his father to inherit part of the estate.)
Today's ruling means that the state court's finding is far from the last word. The dispute will now go back to federal district court, where a long battle is likely, given the high stakes and bitterness that have attended the case.
Justice John Paul Stevens suggested in a concurring opinion today that the "probate exception" may be a bad idea. "I would provide the creature with a decent burial," he said.
Meanwhile, E. Pierce Marshall vowed not to give up. "I will continue to fight to uphold my father's estate plan and clear my name," he told The Associated Press today. He said that is a promise that Ms. Smith and her lawyers "can take to the bank."