Table of Contents
Introduction: The $3 Million Question and the Ghost of a $475 Million Fortune
As a young journalist cutting my teeth on the national desk, I remember the day the wire lit up with a story that seemed torn from a Hollywood script.
In September 2000, a California bankruptcy judge awarded Anna Nicole Smith, the larger-than-life model and media personality, a staggering $475 million from the estate of her late billionaire husband, J.
Howard Marshall II.1
The headline practically wrote itself: “Playmate Wins Billionaire’s Fortune.” It was a story of a modern-day Cinderella, a validation of a controversial marriage, and a financial windfall of epic proportions.
I wrote the story, filed it, and moved on, assuming the saga had reached its dramatic conclusion.
I could not have been more wrong.
That $475 million, which seemed so real and tangible, would prove to be a ghost—a legal mirage that haunted headlines for another decade before vanishing completely.
This brings us to the central paradox that continues to confuse the public today: How can Dannielynn Birkhead, the sole surviving child of Anna Nicole Smith and the heir to this epic legal battle, have an estimated net worth of a relatively modest $3 million?.4
Why not the hundreds of millions, or even billions, so often associated with her name?
For years, I struggled to reconcile the initial judgment with the final outcome.
The public narrative was a chaotic mess of conflicting court rulings, appeals, and personal tragedies.
The truth, I discovered, was not in picking a side between Smith and the Marshall family.
The epiphany came when I stopped seeing the case as a simple tug-of-war and started seeing it for what it was: a catastrophic failure of legal architecture.
The battle was fought like a war on two fronts, in two different court systems—a Texas probate court and a California federal bankruptcy court.
These two powerful legal forces, instead of resolving the issue, created a destructive “jurisdictional resonance,” amplifying each other’s power until the entire legal structure collapsed under the strain, ensuring no one could cross to the other side to claim the prize.
This report will deconstruct that chaos.
Using the framework of this legal collapse, we will trace the two-decade war over the Marshall fortune, demystify the two landmark Supreme Court decisions it produced, and reveal the true story of Dannielynn Birkhead’s inheritance.
It is a story not of a lost fortune, but of a life saved from the very forces that created the myth in the first place.
In a Nutshell: The Financial Facts
- Dannielynn Birkhead’s Estimated Net Worth: Approximately $3 million.4
- Inheritance from J. Howard Marshall II: Dannielynn Birkhead and her mother’s estate received zero dollars from the $1.6 billion Marshall fortune.4
- Source of Her Wealth: Her net worth comes almost exclusively from the estate of her mother, Anna Nicole Smith. At the time of Smith’s death in 2007, her personal estate was valued at approximately $700,000 to $1 million.5 This amount was placed in a trust for Dannielynn and has been managed and grown over the years by her father and trustee, Larry Birkhead.10
- Why the Marshall Fortune Was Lost: After a nearly 20-year legal battle fought in multiple courts, Anna Nicole Smith’s estate ultimately lost its claim. A final, decisive 2011 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Stern v. Marshall invalidated the massive California judgment, and a subsequent 2014 ruling ended any chance of recovery.11
Part I: The Foundation of the Myth: A Marriage, a Promise, and a Will
The seeds of one of America’s most complex legal battles were sown in a Houston strip club in October 1991.
There, Vickie Lynn Hogan, a 24-year-old dancer who would soon be known to the world as Anna Nicole Smith, met J.
Howard Marshall II, an 86-year-old oil tycoon.1
What followed was a whirlwind courtship funded by Marshall’s immense wealth.
He reportedly lavished her with cash and gifts, and after their first lunch date where he gave her $1,000, she quit her job.15
In the ensuing years, Smith’s own star rose meteorically; she became a Guess jeans model, a Playboy Playmate of the Year, and an actress.1
On June 27, 1994, the two were married.
She was 26; he was 89.13
The union was immediately met with public skepticism and accusations that Smith was a “gold digger,” a claim she consistently denied, insisting their love was genuine.13
This marriage, however, contained a fundamental conflict that would define the next two decades of litigation: the chasm between an alleged verbal promise and an ironclad written will.
The entirety of Anna Nicole Smith’s future legal claim rested on her assertion that J.
Howard had repeatedly promised to give her half of his estate, a figure she later estimated to be worth around $300 million.11
This promise was never put in writing.
The legal reality was starkly different.
When J.
Howard Marshall II died of pneumonia just 14 months after their wedding, on August 4, 1995, his meticulously crafted estate plan came into effect.13
Forged over decades by a man who was not only a brilliant businessman but also a former Yale Law School professor, the will and its associated trust were unambiguous.18
They left his entire $1.6 billion fortune, primarily a 16% stake in Koch Industries, to his younger son, E.
Pierce Marshall.
Anna Nicole Smith was not mentioned and received nothing.17
While Marshall had been extraordinarily generous during his lifetime, gifting her an estimated $6 million, his formal testamentary documents reflected a clear and deliberate choice to exclude her from any inheritance.7
The moment J.
Howard died, the battle lines were drawn.
E.
Pierce Marshall, who had already clashed with Smith during his father’s final illness, moved to enforce the will as written.1
For Pierce, this was not merely a financial matter; it was a crusade to uphold what he saw as his father’s true and final wishes.17
The stage was set for a legal war, a war whose conditions were arguably created by J.
Howard Marshall himself.
His conflicting behaviors—lavish private gifting, alleged verbal promises, and a contradictory, legally sound will—created an ambiguity that all but guaranteed a fight.
The ensuing conflict was not an unforeseen tragedy but a predictable consequence of a billionaire who wanted it both ways.
Part II: A War on Two Fronts: The Destructive Resonance of Dueling Courts
The legal strategy employed by Anna Nicole Smith’s team was audacious and unconventional.
Instead of limiting the fight to the expected venue, they opened a second, parallel front, transforming a standard probate dispute into a complex jurisdictional nightmare.
This is where the “jurisdictional resonance” began, as two powerful court systems were set on a collision course.
The First Force: The Texas Probate Court
The conventional battle was waged in the probate court of Harris County, Texas.
This was the legally proper venue to contest a will and handle the administration of J.
Howard Marshall’s estate.
Smith’s legal team challenged the will, not by claiming it was invalid, but on the grounds of “tortious interference with an expectancy”.2
This legal theory alleges that a third party—in this case, E.
Pierce Marshall—used fraud, duress, or other wrongful means to prevent a benefactor from fulfilling their intent to provide an inheritance.
Smith claimed that Pierce had isolated his father and thwarted his plans to create a new trust in her favor.2
The Texas court system, with its established probate laws, was seen as the primary, if perhaps more challenging, path to victory.
Ultimately, after a lengthy five-month jury trial, this court would rule decisively against Smith, finding that the will was valid and she was entitled to nothing.1
The Second, Unconventional Force: The California Bankruptcy Court
The true genius—and the source of the ensuing chaos—was the opening of a second front in California.
In February 1996, facing mounting debts and a default judgment against her in an unrelated sexual harassment case, Anna Nicole Smith filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in Los Angeles.1
This move, seemingly a sign of financial distress, was in fact a brilliant jurisdictional gambit.
The key that unlocked this new battlefield was a move by E.
Pierce Marshall himself.
He filed a proof of claim in Smith’s bankruptcy case, alleging that she had defamed him through her attorneys’ statements to the media.3
By filing this claim, Pierce voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the federal bankruptcy court.
This gave Smith’s lawyers the opening they needed.
They filed a
counterclaim against Pierce, re-litigating the very same “tortious interference” claim that was already being fought in Texas.2
This strategy was a high-risk, high-reward effort to find a more favorable judicial environment.
The goal was not just to win, but to create a conflicting judgment so massive that it could potentially overwhelm and supersede any negative outcome in Texas.
The Amplification: A Tale of Two Judgments
For several years, the two cases proceeded on parallel tracks, leading to a legal collision of epic proportions.
The two courts, examining the same essential facts, reached diametrically opposed conclusions.
- California, September 2000: The federal bankruptcy court ruled in favor of Smith on her counterclaim. Finding that Pierce Marshall had indeed wrongfully interfered with her expected inheritance, the court awarded her $449,754,134 in compensatory damages. This amount was later supplemented with $25 million in punitive damages, bringing the total judgment to a staggering $474,754,134.1 This was the birth of the phantom fortune, the headline-grabbing number that would define the public’s understanding of the case for years.
- Texas, March 2001: Just a few months later, the jury in the Texas probate court reached its verdict. After hearing five months of testimony, they found entirely in favor of E. Pierce Marshall, ruling that Anna Nicole Smith was entitled to zero dollars from the estate.1
The jurisdictional resonance had reached its peak.
The legal system had produced two valid, yet utterly contradictory, judgments, setting the stage for more than a decade of appeals that would ultimately require the intervention of the nation’s highest court—twice.
Table: The Marshall Estate Litigation – A Timeline of Conflicting Rulings
| Date | Court/Jurisdiction | Key Event/Ruling | Financial Outcome for Smith Estate |
| Aug 1995 | N/A | J. Howard Marshall II dies; E. Pierce Marshall seeks to enforce will. | $0 |
| Feb 1996 | U.S. Bankruptcy Court, CA | Anna Nicole Smith files for bankruptcy. | N/A |
| Sep 2000 | U.S. Bankruptcy Court, CA | Judge awards Smith damages for “tortious interference.” | +$474.7 Million |
| Mar 2001 | Texas Probate Court | Jury rules will is valid and Smith is not entitled to any inheritance. | $0 |
| Mar 2002 | U.S. District Court, CA | On review, judge reduces the bankruptcy award. | $88 Million |
| Dec 2004 | U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals | Overturns the District Court award, citing the “probate exception.” | $0 |
| May 2006 | U.S. Supreme Court | In Marshall v. Marshall, rules federal courts do have jurisdiction. Reverses 9th Circuit. | Case revived |
| Mar 2010 | U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals | On remand, rules against Smith again, stating the Texas judgment takes precedence. | $0 |
| Jun 2011 | U.S. Supreme Court | In Stern v. Marshall, rules bankruptcy court lacked constitutional authority to issue the judgment. | $0 (Final on this claim) |
| Aug 2014 | U.S. District Court, CA | Judge rejects a final bid from Smith’s estate for $44 million in sanctions. | $0 (Case ends) |
Part III: The Supreme Court Showdowns: A Legal Structure Under Review
With the lower courts deadlocked in a jurisdictional quagmire, the case inevitably landed at the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Court’s role was not to decide whether Anna Nicole Smith “deserved” the money, but to act as a structural engineer, examining the deeply flawed legal bridge that had been constructed by the dueling court systems.
Its two landmark rulings would define the boundaries of federal and bankruptcy court power for decades to come.
Marshall v. Marshall (2006): The First Structural Test
The first appeal to the Supreme Court arose after the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals threw out the California judgment.3
The 9th Circuit had relied on the “probate exception,” a long-standing judicial doctrine holding that federal courts should not interfere with state probate matters.19
The central question before the Supreme Court was whether this exception was so broad that it barred the federal bankruptcy court from ever hearing Smith’s counterclaim in the first place.
On May 1, 2006, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in favor of Anna Nicole Smith’s estate.1
In an opinion written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court significantly narrowed the scope of the probate exception.
It held that while federal courts cannot directly probate a will or administer an estate, they
do have jurisdiction to hear related claims, such as Smith’s tortious interference lawsuit.13
The media and the public widely misinterpreted this as a monumental victory for Smith, signaling that she was now on a clear path to collecting her millions.14
In reality, it was a pyrrhic victory.
The ruling merely confirmed that the federal court was a legitimate battlefield; it did not validate the judgment won there.
By allowing the case to proceed, the Supreme Court ensured that the deeper constitutional flaws in the California judgment would eventually come under scrutiny.
The 2006 “win” was simply a ticket to a later, more decisive, and ultimately fatal, legal showdown.
Stern v. Marshall (2011): The Final Condemnation
After the 2006 ruling, the case went back to the 9th Circuit, which again ruled against Smith’s estate, this time on the grounds that the Texas probate judgment was reached first and should therefore take precedence.2
This led to the second, and final, Supreme Court case,
Stern v.
Marshall.
(Howard K.
Stern was the executor of Smith’s estate following her death).
This time, the question was far more technical but infinitely more consequential.
Even if the federal court had jurisdiction to hear the case, did a bankruptcy judge—who is appointed under Article I of the Constitution—have the constitutional authority to issue a final, binding judgment on a state-law counterclaim? Or was that a power reserved exclusively for Article III judges, who are granted lifetime tenure to ensure their independence?.8
On June 23, 2011, the Supreme Court delivered the death blow.
In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled against Smith’s estate, finding that the bankruptcy court had indeed exceeded its constitutional authority.13
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that entering a final judgment on Smith’s common law counterclaim was a core judicial power that could not be exercised by a non-Article III court.8
This ruling did not just reverse the judgment; it vaporized it.
It declared that the $475 million award from the California bankruptcy court was constitutionally invalid from its inception.5
The jurisdictional resonance had been silenced, and the elaborate legal structure built by Smith’s team collapsed into dust.
Part IV: The Collapse: Why the Billions Slipped Away for Good
The 2011 decision in Stern v.
Marshall was the point of no return.
It effectively erased the California judgment from the legal landscape, leaving only the Texas probate court’s “zero-dollar” ruling as the final word on the inheritance claim.2
The two-decade war for a share of the Marshall fortune was, for all practical purposes, over.
However, there was one final legal maneuver.
Lawyers for Smith’s estate launched a last-ditch effort, seeking $44 million in sanctions against the Marshall estate.11
They argued that E.
Pierce Marshall’s legal team had engaged in abusive litigation tactics, including concealing documents and using delays that caused tangible harm to Smith’s case.
The claim was that these tactics had prevented her from winning in California before the Texas judgment could be finalized.12
On August 18, 2014, U.S. District Judge David O.
Carter issued the final word on the nearly 20-year saga.
While he was sharply critical of the Marshall legal team’s conduct, noting their “distinct disinterest in rules or ethics,” he ultimately rejected the sanctions bid.11
He ruled that it was no longer “reasonable nor practical” to continue the litigation and that the Smith estate had failed to prove the specific damages caused by the misconduct.12
The book was officially, and finally, closed.
The protracted battle had become a war of attrition, a financial black hole that consumed vast resources and outlived its principal combatants.
Both Anna Nicole Smith (d+. 2007) and E.
Pierce Marshall (d+. 2006) died mid-battle, leaving their estates and heirs to carry on a fight that had morphed from a financial dispute into an intractable, emotional crusade.8
The final ruling against sanctions was the court’s acknowledgment that the legal structure had already collapsed, and there was nothing left to salvage.
The fight itself had become the punishment, a scorched-earth conflict that left no victors.
Part V: A New Tragedy, A New Battle: The Fight for Dannielynn
Just as the legal war over the Marshall fortune was reaching its most critical phase, the human story took a devastatingly tragic turn, creating a new and even more urgent legal battle.
The period between September 2006 and February 2007 was one of unimaginable loss.
On September 7, 2006, Anna Nicole Smith gave birth to a daughter, Dannielynn, in the Bahamas.24
Just three days later, on September 10, her 20-year-old son, Daniel, died of an accidental drug overdose while visiting her in her hospital room.1
Five months later, on February 8, 2007, a grief-stricken Anna Nicole herself died from an accidental overdose of prescription drugs at the age of 39.13
Her death created an immediate power vacuum and triggered a high-stakes paternity and custody crisis over her infant daughter.
The battle was intense and highly publicized, with several men claiming to be the father.
The two main contenders were Howard K.
Stern, Smith’s lawyer and live-in partner who was listed as the father on Dannielynn’s Bahamian birth certificate, and Larry Birkhead, a celebrity photographer who had been in a relationship with Smith and filed a lawsuit to establish his paternity.1
The stakes were enormous.
At that time, before the final Supreme Court ruling, the $88 million judgment (the reduced amount from the District Court) was still in play.
The person who had legal custody of Dannielynn would not only be her guardian but would also control her status as the sole heir to her mother’s estate and its massive potential claim against the Marshall fortune.26
The paternity battle was, in essence, a proxy war for control of the phantom inheritance.
The dispute was ultimately resolved not by legal argument, but by science.
A Bahamian court ordered a DNA test.
On April 10, 2007, the results were announced: Larry Birkhead was confirmed to be Dannielynn’s biological father with 99.99% probability.25
To his credit, Howard K.
Stern did not contest the results and supported Birkhead gaining full custody.25
Birkhead’s victory was twofold: he won the right to raise his daughter, and in doing so, he became the reluctant captain of a legal ship that was already taking on water and would, a few years later, sink for good.
Part VI: The True Inheritance: A Father’s Guardianship and a Quiet Life
This brings us back to the central question: what is the source of Dannielynn Birkhead’s $3 million net worth? The answer lies not in the labyrinthine Marshall case, but in the much simpler estate of her mother.
Dannielynn received absolutely nothing from the $1.6 billion estate of J.
Howard Marshall II.4
Her entire financial inheritance comes from Anna Nicole Smith.
In 2008, a Los Angeles judge officially declared 18-month-old Dannielynn the sole heir to her mother’s estate.10
At the time of her death, Smith’s personal estate—separate from the Marshall claim—was valued at a surprisingly modest figure, estimated between
$700,000 and $1 million.5
This amount was placed into a trust for Dannielynn’s benefit, with Larry Birkhead and Howard K.
Stern appointed as co-trustees to manage the funds until she reached adulthood.10
The current, widely cited net worth of $3 million is the logical result of nearly two decades of prudent management and growth of this initial inheritance by her father.4
This figure may also include earnings from ventures like Dannielynn’s 2013 modeling campaign for Guess Kids—a poignant echo of her mother’s career—and other carefully managed assets.28
More significant than the money, however, is the non-monetary inheritance Dannielynn received: a life of relative normalcy.
This was a deliberate choice made by Larry Birkhead.
After winning the custody battle, he moved Dannielynn from the glare of Hollywood to his home state of Kentucky, determined to provide her with a protected and stable childhood, far from the chaos that had consumed her mother.29
He has managed her public profile with extreme care.
Their most visible outing is an annual tradition: attending the Kentucky Derby.25
This event is deeply symbolic, as the Barnstable Brown Gala, held the night before the Derby, is where Larry and Anna Nicole first M.T.25
These appearances are a controlled way for Dannielynn to connect with her mother’s story and legacy.
In recent years, she has honored her mother by wearing her vintage clothing and jewelry to the event, a tangible link to the parent she never knew.32
Larry has preserved all of her mother’s possessions in storage, creating a personal archive for his daughter to explore on her own terms.32
The failure to win the Marshall fortune was, paradoxically, the key to Dannielynn’s well-being.
Had her mother’s estate been awarded hundreds of millions of dollars, her life would have been unimaginably different, almost certainly mired in the same intense public scrutiny, legal battles, and pressures that proved so destructive for Anna Nicole.
Her modest, managed net worth is a symbol of a protected childhood.
Larry Birkhead’s greatest achievement was not winning a court case, but building a normal life for his daughter out of the wreckage of a legal and personal catastrophe.
Conclusion: Beyond the Fortune: Redefining a Legacy
The saga of the Marshall estate is a masterclass in how legal battles can take on a life of their own, fueled by emotion, ego, and the strange physics of “jurisdictional resonance.” The strategy of fighting a war on two fronts created a legal structure so flawed and unstable it was destined to collapse, consuming fortunes and lives in the process.
The ghost of a $475 million judgment haunted the courts for over a decade before being exorcised by the Supreme Court, leaving nothing behind.
Dannielynn Birkhead’s story, therefore, is not a tragedy of a lost inheritance.
It is the story of a remarkable exchange.
A phantom fortune of hundreds of millions, and the toxic fame that came with it, was traded for a real life of quiet stability, the unwavering guardianship of a loving father, and a future of her own making.
As she enters adulthood, she is reportedly considering college, with interests in forensic science, and is cautiously exploring acting and modeling on her own terms—not as a destiny, but as a choice.34
The ultimate irony of the Anna Nicole Smith story is that its most spectacular failure in court became the foundation for her daughter’s quiet success in life.
The greatest inheritance Dannielynn received was not from a billionaire’s contested will, but from a father’s determination to build a world for her far from the storm.
Her net worth is not just $3 million; it is the priceless, incalculable value of a life reclaimed.
Works cited
- Timeline of Anna Nicole Smith – SFGATE, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Timeline-of-Anna-Nicole-Smith-7553134.php
- Anna Nicole Smith, Where Are We Now? | New Case Information, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.boeschlawgroup.com/anna-nicole-smith-23-years-later-where-are-we-now/
- Anna Nicole Smith – The Continuation of the Legal Saga and Its Impact on Federal Jurisdiction – Sheppard Mullin, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.sheppardmullin.com/media/article/952_freeman%20wong%20sacks%20anna%20nicole%20smith.pdf
- Who Is Dannielynn Birkhead? Get To Know Anna Nicole Smith’s Daughter – Parade, accessed August 12, 2025, https://parade.com/celebrities/dannielynn-birkhead-anna-nicole-smith-daughter
- Anna Nicole Smith Can Teach Us a Few Things – Morris Hall, PLLC, accessed August 12, 2025, https://morristrust.com/news-resources/news-room/anna-nicole-smith-can-teach-us-a-few-things-9292006/
- Dannielynn Birkhead Net Worth 2024: What Is Anna Nicole Smith’s Daughter Worth?, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.hotnewhiphop.com/798547-dannielynn-birkhead-net-worth
- The End of the Battle Over Anna Nicole Smith’s Late Husband’s Estate: Why Her Young Daughter Likely Won’t Receive Any of J. Howard Marshall’s Money | FindLaw, accessed August 12, 2025, https://supreme.findlaw.com/legal-commentary/the-end-of-the-battle-over-anna-nicole-smiths-late-husbands-estate-why-her-young-daughter-likely-wont-receive-any-of-j-howard-marshalls-money.html
- Anna Nicole’s Heirs Lose Fight for Marshall Estate – Courthouse News Service, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.courthousenews.com/anna-nicoles-heirs-lose-fight-for-marshall-estate/
- Celebrity Estate Lessons Anna Nicole Smith, accessed August 12, 2025, https://harrisonestatelaw.com/celebrity-estate-lessons-anna-nicole-smith/
- Anna Nicole’s Daughter To Inherit Estate – CBS News, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/anna-nicoles-daughter-to-inherit-estate/
- Anna Nicole Smith’s estate battle now over – Keystone Law, accessed August 12, 2025, https://keystone-law.com/anna-nicole-smiths-estate-battle-now-over
- Anna Nicole Smith’s estate loses bid for ex J. Howard Marshall’s millions – UPI, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.upi.com/Entertainment_News/2014/08/20/Anna-Nicole-Smiths-estate-loses-bid-for-ex-J-Howard-Marshalls-millions/1851408532894/
- Anna Nicole Smith – Wikipedia, accessed August 12, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Nicole_Smith
- Timeline: Anna Nicole Smith – CBS News, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/timeline-anna-nicole-smith-28-02-2007/
- All About Anna Nicole Smith’s Husband J. Howard Marshall II – People.com, accessed August 12, 2025, https://people.com/who-was-j-howard-marshall-anna-nicole-smith-husband-7495770
- In 1994, 26-year-old model Anna Nicole Smith married 89-year-old billionaire oil tycoon J. Howard Marshall II. Despite their 63-year age difference, Smith claimed their relationship was built on genuine love. : r/HistoricalCapsule – Reddit, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalCapsule/comments/1gzsnp5/in_1994_26yearold_model_anna_nicole_smith_married/
- TIL in 2014 Anna Nicole Smith’s estate failed in its final bid to obtain $44m from the estate of J. Howard Marshall whom Smith had married when he was 89 & she was 26. The oil tycoon died the next year & left his $1.6b estate to his son & nothing to Smith despite her claim he had promised – Reddit, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/1kjj671/til_in_2014_anna_nicole_smiths_estate_failed_in/
- J. Howard Marshall – Wikipedia, accessed August 12, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Howard_Marshall
- The Anna Nicole Smith Decision and Estate Litigation – McLane Middleton, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.mclane.com/insights/the-anna-nicole-smith-decision-and-estate-litigation/
- Marshall v. Marshall – Wikipedia, accessed August 12, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_v._Marshall
- TIL Anna Nicole Smith never actually got money when her 90-year-old husband died. His will left his $1.6 billion estate to his son and nothing to her. : r/todayilearned – Reddit, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/qfk6or/til_anna_nicole_smith_never_actually_got_money/
- Anna Nicole Smith Case Finally Decided . – American Academy of Estate Planning Attorneys, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.aaepa.com/2011/07/anna-nicole-smith-case-finally-decided/
- Anna Nicole Smith’s family failed in its final bid for inheritance | Peck Ritchey, LLC, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.peckritchey.com/community/anna-nicole-smiths-family-failed-in-its-final-bid-for-inheritance/
- www.lofficielusa.com, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.lofficielusa.com/pop-culture/who-is-anna-nicole-smith-daughter-dannielynn-birkhead-net-worth#:~:text=Birkhead%20was%20born%20on%20September,at%20the%20age%20of%2039.
- All About Anna Nicole Smith and Larry Birkhead’s Daughter, Dannielynn Birkhead – People.com, accessed August 12, 2025, https://people.com/parents/all-about-dannielynn-birkhead-anna-nicole-smith-larry-birkhead-daughter/
- Dannielynn Birkhead paternity case – Wikipedia, accessed August 12, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dannielynn_Birkhead_paternity_case
- Dannielynn Birkhead named sole heir of Anna Nicole Smith estate – People Magazine, accessed August 12, 2025, https://people.com/parents/dannielynn-birk-3/
- Anna Nicole Smith’s daughter Dannielynn Birkhead: Who she is and how much she inherited – The Mirror, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/us-celebrity-news/anna-nicole-smiths-daughter-dannielynn-30006757
- Inside Larry Birkhead’s Quiet Life in Kentucky with 12-Year-Old Daughter Dannielynn, accessed August 12, 2025, https://people.com/parents/larry-birkhead-daughter-dannielynn-kentucky-raising-out-of-spotlight/
- Larry Birkhead on Raising Dannielynn Almost 10 Years After Anna Nicole Smith’s Death: ‘We Make the – WGRZ, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.wgrz.com/article/entertainment/entertainment-tonight/larry-birkhead-on-raising-dannielynn-almost-10-years-after-anna-nicole-smiths-death-we-make-the/71-317220411
- Larry Birkhead talks raising daughter Dannielynn, 15, out of the spotlight and their Kentucky Derby tradition | Fox News, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/larry-birkhead-discusses-raising-daughter-dannielynn-spotlight-kentucky-derby-tradition
- Anna Nicole Smith’s daughter Dannielynn Birkhead is all grown up – Now To Love, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.nowtolove.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/anna-nicole-smith-daughter-dannielynn-birkhead-grown-up-37280/
- Anna Nicole Smith’s LOOK-ALIKE Daughter Dannielynn Birkhead Is All Grown Up At 2024 Kentucky Derby – YouTube, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYDC3UVrMTg
- Larry Birkhead Reveals His and Anna Nicole Smith’s Daughter Dannielynn, 18, Is ‘Actually Interested’ in This Career (Exclusive) – People.com, accessed August 12, 2025, https://people.com/larry-birkhead-says-daughter-dannielynn-is-interested-in-this-career-exclusive-11728520
- Who Is Dannielynn Birkhead? Meet Anna Nicole Smith’s Daughter – L’Officiel, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.lofficielusa.com/pop-culture/who-is-anna-nicole-smith-daughter-dannielynn-birkhead-net-worth
- Larry Birkhead’s Daughter Dannielynn, 18, Wears Her Late Mom Anna Nicole Smith’s Gold Jewelry at the 2025 Kentucky Derby – People.com, accessed August 12, 2025, https://people.com/dannielynn-birkhead-wears-late-mom-anna-nicole-smith-jewelry-2025-kentucky-derby-11726401
- Dannielynn Birkhead Pays Tribute to Her Mom Anna Nicole Smith at the 2025 Kentucky Derby – InStyle, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.instyle.com/dannielynn-birkhead-anna-nicole-smith-jewelry-dress-kentucky-derby-2025-11727901
- Dannielynn Birkhead Sees Anna Nicole Smith Belongings First Time – People.com, accessed August 12, 2025, https://people.com/parents/dannielynn-birkhead-discovers-mother-anna-nicole-smith-treasured-possessions/
- Anna Nicole Smith’s daughter Dannielynn & Larry Birkhead reveal the se… – TikTok, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.tiktok.com/@accesshollywood/video/7500277486840941870
- Larry Birkhead on Daughter Following Anna Nicole’s Career Path – Parade, accessed August 12, 2025, https://parade.com/celebrities/larry-birkhead-shares-his-thoughts-on-daughter-dannielynn-entering-the-spotlight
