Feminist judgments : family law opinions rewritten / edited by Rachel Rebouché, Temple University, Philadelphia.
Material type: TextSeries: Feminist judgment seriesPublication details: UK, CUP, 2020.Description: 426 pISBN:- 9781108556989
- 346.015 REB.F
Item type | Current library | Home library | Call number | Status | Date due | Barcode | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Book | Dept. of Law Processing Center | Dept. of Law | 346.015 REB.F (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | Available | LAW5630 |
Browsing Dept. of Law shelves, Shelving location: Processing Center Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
No cover image available No cover image available | No cover image available No cover image available | No cover image available No cover image available | ||||||
346.015 PAR.F Family law / | 346.015 PAR-L Law Relating to Dowry, Dowry Deaths, Bride Burning, Rape and Related Offences | 346.015 POO.F.2 Family law lectures : family law II / | 346.015 REB.F Feminist judgments : family law opinions rewritten / | 346.015 SUB.F Family law in India / | 346.015 VIJ-L Law of Cruelty, Abetment to Suicide and Dowary Death | 346.016 ASG.S The Shah Bano Controversy |
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Introduction / Rachel Rebouché, -- Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879) / Commentary: Marie Failinger; Judgment: Laura Kessler -- McGuire v. McGuire, 59 N.W.2d 336 (Neb. 1953) / Commentary: Mary Anne Case; Judgment: Martha Ertman, Zvi Triger -- Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471 (1970) / Commentary: Maya Manian; Judgment: Susan Frelich Appleton -- Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) / Commentary: Lisa Fishbayn Joffe; Judgment: Kristen Murray -- Marvin v. Marvin, 557 P.2d 106 (Cal. 1976) / Commentary: Aníbal Rosario Lebrón ; ,Judgment: Kate Sablosky Elengold -- Kulko v. Superior Court, 436 U.S. 84 (1978) / Commentary: Mary-Beth Moylan; Judgment: Katherine Macfarlane -- Daly v. Daly, 715 P.2d 56 (Nev. 1986) / Commentary: Raff Donelson; Judgment: Nancy Polikoff -- Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110 (1989) / Commentary: Suzanne Kim; Judgment: Albertina Antognini -- DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989) / Commentary: Macarena Saez; Judgment: Jessica Dixon Weaver -- Simeone v. Simeone, 581 A.2d 162 (Pa. 1990) / Commentary: Jamie Abrams; Judgment: Alicia Kelly, John Culhane -- Borelli v. Brusseau, 12 Cal. App. 4th 647 (1993) / Commentary: June Carbone; Judgment: Jo Carrillo -- Turner v. Rogers, 564 U.S. 431 (2011) / Commentary: Warren Binford; Judgment: Elizabeth L. MacDowell -- In re T.J.S., 54 A.3d 263 (N.J. 2012) / Commentary: June Carbone; Judgment: Seema Mohapatra -- Matter of A-B-, Respondent, 27 I&N Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018) / Commentary: Natalie Nanasi; Judgment: Suzan M. Pritchett -- Sessions v. Morales-Santana, 2017 WL 2507339 (U.S. 2017) / Commentary: Cynthia Godsoe; Judgment: Tracy Thomas.
"Could a feminist perspective change the shape of the tax law? Most people understand that feminist reasoning has tremendous potential to affect, for example, the law of employment discrimination, sexual harassment, and reproductive rights. Few people may be aware, however, that feminist analysis can likewise transform tax law (as well as other statutory or code-based areas of the law). By highlighting the importance of perspective, background, and preconceptions on the reading and interpretation of statutes, Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Tax Opinions shows what a difference feminist analysis can make to statutory interpretation. This volume, part of the Feminist Judgments Series, brings together a group of scholars and lawyers to rewrite tax decisions in which a feminist emphasis would have changed the outcome or the court's reasoning. The volume includes cases that implicate gender on their face (such as medical expense deductions for fertility treatment or gender confirmation surgery and special tax benefits for married individuals) as well as cases without an obvious connection to gender (such as the tax treatment of tribal lands and the business expense deduction). This book thus opens the way for a discussion of how viewpoint is a key factor in all statutory interpretation cases"--
There are no comments on this title.