000			03629cam a22002058i 4500
020			_a9781108556989
082	0	0	_a346.015 _bREB.F
100			_aRebouche,Rachel,Ed.
245	1	0	_aFeminist judgments : _bfamily law opinions rewritten / _cedited by Rachel Rebouché, Temple University, Philadelphia.
260			_aUK, _bCUP, _c2020.
300			_a426 p. :
490	0		_aFeminist judgment series
504			_aIncludes bibliographical references and index.
505	0		_aIntroduction / 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.
520			_a"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"--
650		0	_aDomestic relations _zUnited States
650		0	_aFeminist jurisprudence _zUnited States.
700	1		_aRebouché, Rachel,
942			_cBK
999			_c378036 _d378036