|
|
<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
|
|
|
<case id="50632" source="Oyez API" schema="simple-legal-case-xml-v1"><name>Reed v. Reed</name><docketNumber>70-4</docketNumber><term>1971</term><court><name>Burger Court (1971-1972)</name><identifier>burger3</identifier><href>https://api.oyez.org/courts/burger3</href></court><parties><firstParty role="Appellant">Sally Reed</firstParty><secondParty role="Appellee">Cecil Reed</secondParty></parties><dates><date type="argued">1971-10-19</date><date type="decided">1971-11-22</date></dates><citation><volume>404</volume><page>71</page><year>1971</year><href>https://api.oyez.org/case_citation/case_citation/14560</href><justia_url>https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/404/71/</justia_url></citation><jurisdiction>Appeal</jurisdiction><facts><html><p>The Idaho Probate Code specified that "males must be preferred to females" in appointing administrators of estates. After the death of their adopted son, both Sally and Cecil Reed sought to be named the administrator of their son's estate (the Reeds were separated). According to the Probate Code, Cecil was appointed administrator and Sally challenged the law in court.</p>
|
|
|
</html><text>The Idaho Probate Code specified that "males must be preferred to females" in appointing administrators of estates. After the death of their adopted son, both Sally and Cecil Reed sought to be named the administrator of their son's estate (the Reeds were separated). According to the Probate Code, Cecil was appointed administrator and Sally challenged the law in court.</text></facts><questions /><conclusion><html><p>In a unanimous decision, the Court held that the law's dissimilar treatment of men and women was unconstitutional. The Court argued that "[t]o give a mandatory preference to members of either sex over members of the other, merely to accomplish the elimination of hearings on the merits, is to make the very kind of arbitrary legislative choice forbidden by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. . .[T]he choice in this context may not lawfully be mandated solely on the basis of sex."</p>
|
|
|
</html><text>In a unanimous decision, the Court held that the law's dissimilar treatment of men and women was unconstitutional. The Court argued that "[t]o give a mandatory preference to members of either sex over members of the other, merely to accomplish the elimination of hearings on the merits, is to make the very kind of arbitrary legislative choice forbidden by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. . .[T]he choice in this context may not lawfully be mandated solely on the basis of sex."</text></conclusion><advocates><advocate for="Argued the cause for the appellee"><name>Charles S. Stout</name><href>https://api.oyez.org/people/charles_s_stout</href></advocate><advocate for="Argued the cause for the appellant"><name>Allen R. Derr</name><href>https://api.oyez.org/people/allen_r_derr</href></advocate></advocates><decisions><decision type="majority opinion" winning_party="Sally Reed"><description>The Idaho Probate Code violated the Fourteenth Amendment.</description><votes majority="7" minority=""><vote opinion_type="none" vote="majority" seniority="2"><justice>William O. Douglas</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/william_o_douglas</justice_href></vote><vote opinion_type="none" vote="majority" seniority="4"><justice>Potter Stewart</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/potter_stewart</justice_href></vote><vote opinion_type="none" vote="majority" seniority="6"><justice>Thurgood Marshall</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/thurgood_marshall</justice_href></vote><vote opinion_type="none" vote="majority" seniority="3"><justice>William J. Brennan, Jr.</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/william_j_brennan_jr</justice_href></vote><vote opinion_type="none" vote="majority" seniority="5"><justice>Byron R. White</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/byron_r_white</justice_href></vote><vote opinion_type="majority" vote="majority" seniority="1"><justice>Warren E. Burger</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/warren_e_burger</justice_href></vote><vote opinion_type="none" vote="majority" seniority="7"><justice>Harry A. Blackmun</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/harry_a_blackmun</justice_href></vote></votes></decision></decisions><source><href>https://api.oyez.org/cases/1971/70-4</href><raw_file>D:\PyCharm Community Edition 2024.3.1.1\PythonProject\IBM Z Datathon\json_data\api.oyez.org_cases_1971_70-4.json</raw_file></source></case> |
