9781108556989 (epub) 9781108471701 (hardback) 9781108458337 (paperback) 1108556981
Feminist judgment series.
"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"-- Provided by publisher.
Bibliography, etc. Note
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Formatted Contents Note
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.
Digital File Characteristics
Source of Description
Description based on online resource; title from digital title page (Cambridge, viewed August 18, 2020)
Available in Other Form
Print version: Feminist judgments (Family law) Feminist judgments Cambridge, United Kingdom ; New York, NY, USA : Cambridge University Press, 2020.