Citation network
Marshall Vs. Marshall
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 01, 2006
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
Syllabus October Term, 2005 Marshall V. MarshallSearch
-
expansively interpreting the two exceptions, this Court reined in the domestic relations exception in Ankenbrandt v. RichardsSearch
-
U. S. 689 , and endeavored similarly to curtail the probate exception in Markham v. AllenSearch
-
traced the current exception to Barber v. BarberSearch
-
court will not assume in rem jurisdiction over the same res. See, e.g. , Penn General Casualty Co. v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
She seeks an in personam judgment against Pierce, not the probate or annulment of a will. Cf. Sutton v. EnglishSearch
-
a state-law tort action for interference with an expected gift or inheritance. It is clear, under Erie R. Co. v. TompkinsSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
reserve to its probate courts the exclusive right to adjudicate a transitory tort. See Tennessee Coal, Iron & R. Co. v. GeorgeSearch
-
U. S. 268 , 281. Durfee v. DukeSearch
-
Alito, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Marshall v. MarshallSearch
-
Opinion of the Court Marshall V. MarshallSearch
-
Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court. In Cohens v. VirginiaSearch
-
Spindel v. SpindelSearch
-
lost sight of his admonition and have rendered decisions expansively interpreting the two exceptions. In Ankenbrandt v. RichardsSearch
-
Earlier, in Markham v. AllenSearch
-
Ibid. (citing Durfee v. DukeSearch
-
s judgment. II In Ankenbrandt v. RichardsSearch
-
s tort claim, id. , at 704, we traced explanation of the current domestic relations exception to Barber v. BarberSearch
-
See Markham v. AllenSearch
-
see also Sutton v. EnglishSearch
-
Waterman v. Canal-LouisianaSearch
-
s estate. See, e.g. , Mangieri v. MangieriSearch
-
Golden v. GoldenSearch
-
Lepard v. NBDSearch
-
Storm v. StormSearch
-
Rienhardt v. KellySearch
-
s, alleges a widely recognized tort. See King v. AckerSearch
-
Brandes v. RiceSearch
-
It is clear, under Erie R. Co. v. TompkinsSearch
-
Tennessee Coal, Iron & R. Co. v. GeorgeSearch
-
determine their rights in the estate (citing Waterman , 215 U. S. 33 )). Our decision in Durfee v. DukeSearch
-
a prior probate court judgment, apparently applying ordinary principles of preclusion. See, e.g. , Thompson v. DeloitteSearch
-
Neill v. YettSearch
-
Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. ValeroSearch
-
Tex. 1999). The matter of preclusion remains open for consideration on remand. See infra , at 18. Marshall v. MarshallSearch
-
Opinion of Stevens, J. Marshall V. MarshallSearch
-
that qualify as cases or controversies that federal courts have jurisdiction to decide. See, e.g. , Reed v. ReedSearch
-
possesses. The familiar aphorism that hard cases make bad law should extend to easy cases as well. Markham v. AllenSearch
-
generated both confusion and abdication of the obligation Chief Justice Marshall so famously articulated, see Cohens v. VirginiaSearch
-
of that dicta , I would go further. The Court is content to adopt the approach it followed in Ankenbrandt v. RichardsSearch
-
estates. In Gaines v. FuentesSearch
-
Id. , at 22. Likewise, in Payne v. HookSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial