Call for Authors – Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Property Opinions

Deadline for Applying: Friday, April 26, 2019
The U.S. Feminist Judgments Project seeks contributors of
rewritten judicial opinions and commentary on the rewritten opinions for an
edited collection tentatively titled Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Property
Opinions. This edited volume is part of a collaborative project among law
professors and others to rewrite, from a feminist perspective, key judicial
decisions in the United States. The initial volume, Feminist Judgments:
Rewritten Opinions of the United States Supreme Court, edited by Kathryn M.
Stanchi, Linda L. Berger, and Bridget J. Crawford, was published by Cambridge
University Press in 2016. Cambridge University Press has approved a series of
Feminist Judgments books. In 2017, Cambridge University Press published the tax
volume titled Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Tax Opinions. Other volumes in the
pipeline include rewritten trusts and estates opinions and rewritten family law
Property law volume editors Eloisa C. Rodriguez-Dod and
Elena Maria Marty-Nelson seek prospective authors and commentators for fifteen
rewritten property opinions covering a range of topics. With the help of an
advisory board of distinguished property law scholars, the editors have
selected a list of cases that have not appeared in other Feminist Judgment
volumes; potential authors are welcome to suggest opinions which do not appear
on the list.
Proposals must be either to (1) rewrite a case opinion (subject
to a 10,000-word limit) or (2) comment on a rewritten opinion (subject to a
4,000-word limit). Rewritten opinions may be re-imagined majority opinions,
concurrences, or dissents. Authors of rewritten opinions will be bound by the
law and precedent in effect at the time of the original decision. Commentators
should explain the original court decision, how the rewritten feminist opinion
differs from the original decision, and the impact the rewritten feminist
opinion might have made. The volume editors conceive of feminism as a broad
movement and welcome proposals that bring into focus intersectional concerns
beyond gender, such as race, class, disability, gender identity, age, sexual
orientation, national origin, and immigration status.
To apply, please email (1) a paragraph or two describing
your area of expertise and your interest in this project; (2) your top two or
three preferences from the list of cases below; and (3) whether you prefer to
serve as an author of a rewritten opinion or an author of a commentary to a
rewritten opinion. Please submit this information via email to the editors,
Eloisa C. Rodriguez-Dod and Elena Maria Marty-Nelson, at and by Friday, April 26, 2019. The Feminist Judgments Project and
the Property book editors are committed to including authors from diverse
backgrounds. If you feel an aspect of your personal identity is important to
your participation, please feel free to include that in your expression of
interest. The editors will notify accepted authors and commentators by Monday,
May 13, 2019. First drafts of rewritten opinions will be due on Monday,
September 16, 2019. First drafts of commentaries will be due on Monday, October
28, 2019.
Tentative List of Cases:
1.         Moore v. City
of E. Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977) (exclusionary zoning)
2.         Ass’n for
Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576 (2013) (patents)
3.         Sawada v.
Endo, 561 P.2d 1291 (Haw. 1977) (tenancy by the entireties)
4.         Gruen v.
Gruen, 496 N.E.2d 869 (N.Y. 1986) (inter vivos gifts)
5.         Coggan v.
Coggan, 239 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 1970) (ouster of co-tenant)
6.         Phillips
Neighborhood Hous. Tr. v. Brown, 564 N.W.2d 573 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997) (lease
termination for illegal activity)
7.         Taylor v.
Canterbury, 92 P.3d 961 (Colo. 2004) (secret severance of joint tenancy)
8.         White v.
Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., 971 F.2d 1395 (9th Cir. 1992) (publicity rights)
9.         Johnson v.
M’Intosh, 21 U.S. 543 (1823) (Native American property rights)
10.       Dolan v.
City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994) (exactions/eminent domain)
11.       Bartley v.
Sweetser, 890 S.W.2d 250 (Ark. 1994) (premises liability)
12.       Tate v.
Water Works & Sewer Bd. of City of Oxford, 217 So. 3d 906 (Ala. Civ. App.
2016) (adverse possession and condemnation)
13.       Blake v.
Stradford, 725 N.Y.S.2d 189 (Dist. Ct. 2001) (ejectment of domestic partner)
14.       Moore v.
Regents of Univ. of California, 793 P.2d 479 (Cal. 1990) (property interest in
one’s genetic material)
15.       Pocono
Springs Civic Ass’n, Inc. v. MacKenzie, 667 A.2d 233 (Pa. Super. Ct.1995)
(abandonment of real property)

from Blogger

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s