As a companion must-read article to Tim’s column on the ObamaCare birth control mandate, John Cochrane…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Cato on Contraception Mandate: 'We Should All be Exempt'

As a companion must-read article to Tim’s column on the ObamaCare birth control mandate, John Cochrane of Cato explains why President Barack Obama’s proposed compromise to exempt church-related institutions misses the point:

Our nation is divided on social issues. The natural compromise is simple: Birth control, abortion and other contentious practices are permitted. But those who object don't have to pay for them. The federal takeover of medicine prevents us from reaching these natural compromises and needlessly divides our society.

The critics fell for a trap. By focusing on an exemption for church-related institutions, critics effectively admit that it is right for the rest of us to be subjected to this sort of mandate. They accept the horribly misnamed Patient Protection and Affordable…[more]

February 10, 2012 • 04:52 pm

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
Anna Nicole's Legal Legacy Lives Long After her Death Print
By CFIF Staff
Friday, February 08 2008
With a playbill that includes venue shopping, exorbitant litigation costs, greed and massive courtroom burdens, Marshall v. Marshall continues long after the Anna Nicole's death.

This week marks the one year anniversary of the death of former Playboy Playmate Anna Nicole Smith.  A mere 12 months after her passing, the lasting legacy of her endless pursuit of her late husband's fortune continues to play out.  In fact, perhaps no other case in the history of our nation better highlights the need for tort reform than Anna Nicole's case against the Marshall estate.

With a playbill that includes venue shopping, exorbitant litigation costs, greed and massive courtroom burdens, Marshall v. Marshall continues long after the Anna Nicole's death. 

Longtime readers of CFIF's website are familiar with the script, as we have written about it before here.

The Marshall v. Marshall litigation stems from Anna Nicole's 1994 marriage to a wealthy 89-year-old Texan, J. Howard Marshall, II, who died one year after they wed.  Anna Nicole filed a lawsuit claiming that Marshall promised to leave her a large portion of his estate. 

Marshall's son and heir, Pierce Marshall, passed away in 2006.  With Anna Nicole's death less than one year later, one would think the case would have ended.  Instead, her lawyers have given it a life of its own, with Anna Nicole's ex-boyfriend/companion, Howard K. Stern, serving as the executor of the legal proceedings. 

Initially, the Texas Probate Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that although J. Howard Marshall II provided for his then 26-year-old wife during his life, he had not made her a beneficiary of his will. Nor, the court ruled, did the younger Marshall interfere with the will.  Anna Nicole's claims were found to be untrue.  Still, in 2006, the case made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ultimately sent the case back to the Ninth Circuit for reconsideration on narrow jurisdictional grounds.

Only time will tell how the Ninth Circuit will rule, for the second time.  What is certain is that never-ending cases like this one send chills throughout the legal system, both because of their costs and tactics.

Recent studies estimate that litigation currently costs Americans between $140 billion and $250 billion every single year. 

The Center for Individual Freedom has always supported an individual's right to bring a lawsuit forward, but in a case like this, where the litigants have died and outrageous legal maneuvers have prevailed, attorneys shame the justice system when they continue to move forward.  Anna Nicole is dead now, and all efforts to continue her ill-founded lawsuit should end. By continuing, a ripple effect is being sent throughout the legal system regarding the future of estate planning in America.

Anna Nicole Smith relished in her fame and notoriety.  Unfortunately, with this case, her true legacy becomes a negative shift in legal cases throughout the nation.

Question of the Week   
Where does the United States rank in The Heritage Foundation’s 2012 Index of Economic Freedom?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"Someone needs to ask Mr. Obama how an increasingly impoverished nation, limping along on food stamps and housing subsidies, is going to pay for the existing beneficiaries, along with 77 million Baby Boomers set to retire in the next 25 years. A president who has impaired the vibrancy of the private sector so badly has long since forfeited the moral high ground."…[more]
 
 
—Mona Charen, Nationally Syndicated Columnist
— Mona Charen, Nationally Syndicated Columnist
 
Liberty Poll   

Should the Obama administration support Israel in a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities?