Howard K. Stern, Executor of the Estate of Vicki Lynn Marshall, Petitioner, v. Elaine T. Marshall, Executrix of the Estate of E. Pierce Marshall
The Court held that a bankruptcy court, as a non-Article III court, lacked constitutional authority under Article III to enter a final judgment on a state law counterclaim not resolved in ruling on a creditor's proof of claim, despite Congress's statutory grant.· AI-written
564 U.S. 462 · No. 10-179 · 2010 term · Roberts Court
Decided Jun 23, 2011 · argued Jan 18, 2011
Private action · Wills and trusts
Struck down an act of Congress
Majority opinion: John Roberts
The voteMajorityDissent
5–45 in the majority, 4 in dissent
4 dissents (5–4)
Affirmed. Howard K. Stern, Executor of the Estate of Vicki Lynn Marshall, Petitioner, lost.
What this ruling means
Affirmed: the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, so it stands (sometimes with changes the Court made to it).
Howard K. Stern, Executor of the Estate of Vicki Lynn Marshall, Petitioner, was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Lost” means the Court did not give that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. 462 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a bankruptcy court, as a non-Article III court (i.e., courts without full judicial independence) lacked constitutional authority under Article III of the United States Constitution to enter a final judgment on a state law counterclaim that is not resolved in the process of ruling on a creditor's proof of claim, even though Congress purported to grant such statutory authority under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)2(C). The case drew an unusual amount of interest because the petitioner was the estate of former Playboy Playmate and celebrity Anna Nicole Smith (whose legal name was Vickie Lynn Marshall). Smith died in 2007, before the Court decided the case, which her estate lost.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2010 term. Filled: the 5 in the majority. Hollow: the 4 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(5)
John RobertsWrote the majority opinion
Antonin ScaliaWrote a concurrence
Anthony KennedyJoined the majority
Samuel AlitoJoined the majority
Clarence ThomasJoined the majority
Dissent(4)
Stephen BreyerWrote a dissent
Ruth GinsburgJoined a dissent
Sonia SotomayorJoined a dissent
Elena KaganJoined a dissent
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- Howard K. Stern, Executor of the Estate of Vicki Lynn Marshall, Petitioner,Wife, or ex-wife
- Respondent
- Elaine T. Marshall, Executrix of the Estate of E. Pierce MarshallChild, children
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- 28-157
- Kind of law
- Infrequently litigated statutes
- Decided by
- Judicial review (national level)
- Struck down
- An act of Congress, as unconstitutional
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Jun 23, 2011DecidedDecided · Decided 5–4: affirmed. Howard K. Stern, Executor of the Estate of Vicki Lynn Marshall, Petitioner, lost.
- Jan 18, 2011ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit: reversed and remanded.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the California Central U.S. District Court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.