Document: 429 U.S. 501 97 S.Ct. 717 50 L.Ed.2d 723 Thelma B. STANTONv.James Lawrence STANTON, Jr. No. 76-512. Jan. 25, 1977. PER CURIAM. 1 This appeal brings before us for the second time Utah Supreme Court's construction of Code Ann. § 15-2-1 (1973),1 which established 21 as age majority males, and 18 females, applied to a parent's obligation support his children. In our first opinion, we held that this distinction between males females violated Equal Protection Clause Fourteenth Amendment United States Constitution. Stanton v. Stanton, 421 7, 95 1373, 43 688 (1975) (Stanton I ).2 We, course, did not decide how was eliminate discrimination genders, thereby determine at what appellee's duty daughter terminated. Instead, remanded case court it resolve issue state law. Id., 17-18, 1373. Our mandate also directed appellant should receive $437.38 her costs on Court. 2 On remand, Court consider presented held, instead, age-of-majority statute constitutional without considering discrimination. That action does comply with mandate. 3 Upon receiving in I, case, directions, District Salt Lake County. correctly recognized, pursuant parties' stipulation, only whether, absence validly worded statutory provision governing child-support majority, both sexes be deemed attain either or 21. It resolved by holding that, "for purposes child support, children their 21." Accordingly, awarded total $3,646.18, consisting $2,700 past due money, $508.80 interest judgment, award from 4 appeal, Court, 3-2 vote, reversed. 552 P.2d 112 (1976). Instead deciding it, portion setting could viewed isolation males: 5 "Obviously two provisions are separable remanding matter correct then legislate bit own say so chosen one sex is other sex. 6 "The oath took when justices forbids encroach duties functions legislature. However, need make any such determination. The male divorce has never been called into question." 113. 7 reasoned female and, therefore, provided still applied. As further its result, declared mother had no equal protection parties expected discrepancy apply decree drafted. Finally, if erase remaining doubt about basis decision, declared: 8 "Regardless judge may think equality, thinking cannot change facts life. . 9 "To judicially hold maturity same blind biological life." 114. 10 undertook reverse entire judgment even including derived mandate.3 11 obviously, inconsistent opinion I. thrust therefore starting point treated differently consistently Cf. Craig Boren, 190, 451, 397 Apparently read requiring law must nondiscriminatory standard. That, misunderstanding. vacated, once again proceedings opinion.4 12 Mr. Justice STEVENS, dissenting part. 13 Petitions rehearing perform wholesome function providing losing litigant legitimate forum adverse comment an decision. Appellate judges soon learn discount hyperbole petitions. 14 Judges who reversed higher sometimes similar outlet, particularly they remain convinced original decision correct. For reason opinions remand occasionally tolerance understanding, question whether answered reference entered lower rather than reaction few unnecessary unfortunate sentences separate joined six members voting. 15 1975 unconstitutional State statute's females. free select all citizens. Thereafter Ellett pointed out "Legislature Utah, attempt satisfy States, passed amendment Section 15-2-1, U.C.A.1953, now reads: 'The period minority extends eighteen years ..' "1 after passage 1975. 16 When reached 1976, pre-amendment 18. reasons given three Justices constituting not, my nearly persuasive Maughan's opinion. But, Maughan clearly power under prior Even though explanation makes determination made law, applies force Federal Constitution well 18, courts interpreting decision.2 17 consistent mandate, except, disallowance costs. Other order allowing appropriate costs, there (or writing) court. respectfully dissent action. "15-2-1. Period minority. twenty-one years; but minors obtain marriage." After Legislature amended read: Age majority. marriage. actions Laws, c. 39. agree present controversy. appellee recognizes impropriety reversal factor, acknowledges amount "due owing agrees pay said amount." Appellee's Motion Dismiss 13. emphasize adopt purposes. constraint choose principle set reiterated here, equally. There least lines authority legitimately might follow. hand, 68-3-1 (1968) provides common England rule courts, except where conflicts laws States. Relying statute, elect valid cases. take note Legislature's response enactment expression legislature public policy treat adults younger age. By suggesting these options, do mean exhaust possibilities; simply mention them illustrate fact leaves open state-law decide. 112, 113 statement effect 3, 10, disputed.

Category: 1