Opinion
77-414.
May 26, 1978.
B. Greg Wood, for Love, Love, Lawrence Burton, Talladega, for petitioners.
Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Civil Appeals, 359 So.2d 383.
WRIT DENIED.
By denying the writ, we point out that writs of certiorari are frequently denied without any consideration of the merits. Haden v. Olan Mills, Inc., 273 Ala. 129, 135 So.2d 388 (1961). A denial of certiorari should never be considered as an expression by the reviewing court on the merits of the controversy. See Hamilton Brown Shoe Co. v. Wolf Brothers, 240 U.S. 251, 36 S.Ct. 269, 60 L.Ed. 629 (1916). Our denial of the writ should not be understood as approving or disapproving the language used, or the statements of law contained in the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals. See Cooper v. State, 287 Ala. 728, 252 So.2d 108 (1971).
TORBERT, C.J., and JONES, SHORES and BEATTY, JJ., concur.
I concur in denying the writ, but in doing so I feel constrained to make the following observation: The non-entitlement to periodic compensation by a minor upon reaching 18 years of age is governed by the express language of Tit. 26, § 286, Code (§ 25-5-65, Code 1975), and not by any rationale contained in U.S. Steel v. Baker, 266 Ala. 538, 97 So.2d 899 (1957). Indeed, following Baker § 279 was amended by adding language which now appears as the second sentence of § 25-5-57 (a)(5), Code 1975, creating a new substantive right in the widow and minor children to money denied them in Baker. See also, U.S. Steel v. Hubbert, 268 Ala. 674, 110 So.2d 260 (1959).