Lean Library can solve itIf you have access to a journal via a society or association membership, please browse to your society journal, select an article to view, and follow the instructions in this box.24 hours online access to download contentContact us if you experience any difficulty logging in. . In such situations, § 15-314 provides that different treatment be accorded to the applicants on the basis of their sex; it thus establishes a classification subject to scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. The Equal Protection Clause of that amendment does, however, deny to States the power to legislate that different treatment be accorded to persons placed by a statute into 76*76 different classes on the basis of criteria wholly unrelated to the objective of that statute. No.
The Petitioner, Ms. Reed the mother of a deceased child (Petitioner), alleges a statute that prefers males over females in the administration of an estate to which they both have equal claims, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution (Constitution).
Royster Guano Co. v. Virginia, supra.Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed by J. Lee Rankin and Norman Redlich for the City of New York; by Martha W. Griffiths, Phineas Indritz, Leo Kanowitz, Marguerite Rawalt, Sylvia Roberts, and Faith Seidenberg for American Veterans Committee, Inc., et al. When you read this e-book you will enter the new dimensions that you ever know prior to.
; and by Birch Bayh for the National Federation of Business and Professional Women’s Clubs, Inc.[1] In her petition, Sally Reed alleged that her son’s estate, consisting of a few items of personal property and a small savings account, had an aggregate value of less than $1,000. With him on the brief was Myron E. Anderson.
The surviving husband or wife or some competent person whom he or she may request to have appointed. A proposed Equal Rights Amendment had been approved by the U.S. House of Representatives in August 1970 by a margin of greater than ten to one, 350–15, and again in October 1971 by a vote of 354–24. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 20, 573 – 582.
Reed v. Reed , 404 U.S. 71 (1971), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court ruling that the administrators of estates cannot be named in a way that discriminates between sexes. On that date, §§ 15-312 and 15-314 of the present code will, then, be effectively repealed, and there is in the new legislation no mandatory preference for males over females as administrators of estates.“If the decedent was a member of a partnership at the time of his decease, the surviving partner must in no case be appointed administrator of his estate.”Clearly the objective of reducing the workload on probate courts by eliminating one class of contests is not without some legitimacy.
The parties now before the Court are not affected by the operation of § 15-312 in this respect, however, and appellant has made no challenge to that section.In issuing its order, the probate court implicitly recognized the equality of entitlement of the two applicants under § 15-312 and noted that neither of the applicants was under any legal disability; the court ruled, however, that appellee, being a male, was to be preferred to the female appellant “by reason of Section 15-314 of the Idaho Code.” In stating this conclusion, the probate judge gave no indication that he had attempted to determine the relative capabilities of the competing applicants to perform the functions incident to the administration of an estate. Reed v. Reed was an important case for feminism because it recognized sex discrimination as a violation of the Constitution.
3.
The Supreme Court concluded that the Idaho law did not achieve the state's objective - the objective of reducing the probate court workload - "in a manner consistent with the command of the Equal Protection Clause." The "dissimilar treatment" based on sex for persons in the same class of section 15-312 (in this case, mothers and fathers) was unconstitutional. Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U. S. 27 (1885); Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 220 U. S. 61 (1911); Railway Express Agency v. New York, 336 U. S. 106 (1949); McDonald v. Board of Election Commissioners, 394 U. S. 802 (1969).
Simply select your manager software from the list below and click on download.Click the button below for the full-text contentSign in here to access free tools such as favourites and alerts, or to access personal subscriptionsDid you struggle to get access to this article? By providing dissimilar treatment for men and women who are thus similarly situated, the challenged section violates the Equal Protection Clause.
[3] The court also held that the statute violated Art.
When Cecil Reed filed a similar petition, the Probate Court of Ada County ordered that he be appointed administrator upon his taking the required oath and filing the required bond.The court reached this decision without considering the parents' relative merits, but strictly in accordance with Idaho's mandatory probate code.
7.
. The case of Reed v. Reed soon contributed to this evolving social change. Shuiro (vermilion), akaneiro (madder red), enji (dark red), karakurenai (crimson) and hiiro (scarlet) are among of them. Argued October 19, 1971 Decided November 22, 1971.