Full Description
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.
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.
