Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Property Opinions
Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Property Opinions
Elena Maria Marty-Nelson, Nova Southeastern University Shepard Broad College of Law
How could feminist perspectives and methods change the shape of property law? This volume assembles a group of diverse scholars to explore this question by presenting fundamental property law cases rewritten from a feminist perspective. The cases cover a broad range of property law topics, from landlord-tenant rights and obligations, patents, and zoning to publicity rights, land titles, concurrent ownership, and takings. These rewritten opinions and their accompanying commentaries demonstrate how incorporating feminist theories and methods could have made property law more just and equitable for women and marginalized groups. The book also shows how property law is not neutral but is shaped by the society that produces it and the judges who apply it.
- Contains both rewritten opinions and commentaries, helping readers learn to critically analyze cases
- Features diverse voices regarding race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, and socio-economic status
- Demonstrates how feminist perspectives can enrich and deepen the process by which judicial decisions are made
Reviews & endorsements
'Property has been used across time and geography to dispossess, disenfranchise, and discriminate. However, the injustices in common law property jurisprudence have often been accepted as inevitable or even necessary. This book is an important step in dismantling the mythology of a neutral, apolitical liberal property paradigm by exposing property's deliberate gendered, racial, and class-based inequities. Its accessibility and depth make it a wonderful pedagogical tool as well as scholarly resource for students, scholars, advocates, and readers interested in what a more equitable, feminist property regime could look like.' Priya Gupta, Associate Professor, McGill Faculty of Law
'I will never teach classic property cases, such as Johnson v. M'Intosh, Pierson v. Post, and Kelo v. City of New London, the same way again. The contributors to Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Property Opinions do an excellent job of exposing patriarchal bias in property law decisions throughout history, and in so doing, they have provided a very valuable service to both law practitioners and the larger society. Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Property Opinions should be required reading for all property law professors.' Claire Osborn-Wright, Visiting Associate Professor of Law, St. Thomas University School of Law
'Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Property Opinions should be on every Property professor's bookshelf. Not only is it an invaluable guide for instructors who want to integrate feminist jurisprudence into a required first-year course, it is also a resource to recommend to students who want to learn more than black letter law. Today's law students are seeking sophisticated, nuanced discussions of the cases they cover in their classes. This is what you will find in Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Property Opinions.' Angela Gilmore, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professor of Law, North Carolina Central University School of Law
Product details
January 2022Adobe eBook Reader
9781108880022
0 pages
This ISBN is for an eBook version which is distributed on our behalf by a third party.
Table of Contents
- Part I. Introduction:
- 1. Introduction to the feminist judgments: Rewritten property opinions project
- 2. Property law revolution, devolution, and feminist legal theory
- 3. Incorporating feminist perspectives throughout law school curriculum
- Part II. Allocation of Rights:
- 4. Johnson v. M'Intosh, 21 U.S. 543 (1823)
- 5. Botiller v. Dominguez, 130 U.S. 238 (1889)
- 6. Pierson v. Post, 3 Cai. R. 175 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1805)
- Part III. Patents, Publicity Rights, and Trademarks:
- 7. Association for molecular pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576 (2013)
- 8. White v. Samsung electronics America, Inc., 971 F.2d 1395 (9th Cir. 1992)
- Part IV. Condemnation and Adverse Possession:
- 9. Kelo v. City of New London, Connecticut, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)
- 10. Tate v. water works and sewer board of the City of Oxford, 217 So. 3d 906 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016)
- Part V. Gifts and Future Interests:
- 11. Gruen v. Gruen, 496 N.E.2d 869 (N.Y. 1986)
- Part VI. Tenancy in Common, Joint Tenancy, and Tenancy by the Entirety:
- 12. Sawada v. Endo, 561 P.2d 1291 (Haw. 1977)
- 13. Taylor v. Canterbury, 92 P.3d 961 (Colo. 2004)
- 14. Coggan v. Coggan, 239 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 1970)
- Part VII. Exclusionary Zoning:
- 15. Moore v. City of East Cleveland, Ohio, 431 U.S. 494 (1977)
- Part VIII. Evictions:
- 16. Phillips neighborhood housing trust v. Brown, 564 N.W.2d 573 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997)
- 17. Blake v. Stradford, 725 N.Y.S.2d 189 (Dist. Ct. 2001)
- Part IX. Landlord-tenant Premises Liability:
- 18. Bartley v. Sweetser, 890 S.W.2d 250 (Ark. 1994)
- Index.
