| Call # |
KF1250 .F46 2020 |
| Descript |
xxix, 427 pages ; 23 cm |
| Series |
Feminist judgments series
|
|
Feminist judgments series
|
| Bibliog. |
Includes bibliographical references and index |
| Contents |
Introduction to the feminist judgments: rewritten torts opinions / Martha Chamallas and Lucinda M. Finley -- Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., 162 N.E. 99 (N.Y. 1928) / Taunya Lovell Banks and Maurice R. Dyson -- Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. of Fresno, 150 P.2d 436 (Cal. 1944) / Mary J. Davis and Zanita E. Fenton -- Farwell v. Keaton, 240 N.W.2d 217 (Mich. 1976) / E. Christi Cunningham and Sarah L. Swan -- Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, 551 P.2d 334 (Cal. 1976) / Jaimie R. Abrams, Sharmila Lodhia and Stephanie Wildman -- Robinson v. Cutchin, 140 F. Supp. 2d 488 (D. Md. 2001) / Yvonne Lindgren and Alena Allen -- Guthrie v. Conroy, 567 S.E.2d 403 (N.C. Ct. App. 2002) / L. Camille Hébert and Sandra Sperino -- Lyman v. Huber, 10 A.3d 707 (Me. 2010) / Caroline Forell, Jeffrey E. Thomas and Leah Thomas -- Sipple v. Chronicle Publishing Co., 201 Cal. Rptr. 665 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984) / Anna Lauren Hoffman and Scott Skinner-Thompson -- Sharon P. v. Arman, Ltd., 989 P.2d 121 (Cal. 1999) / Jessica Hynes and Yifat Bitton -- Broadnax v. Gonzalez, 809 N.E.2d 645 (N.Y. 2004) / Elizabeth Kukura, Eileen Kaufman and Laura Dooley -- Boyles v. Kerr, 855 S.W.2d 593 (Tex. 1993) / Lisa R. Pruitt and Cristina Tilley -- Emerson v. Magendantz, 689 A.2d 409 (R.I. 1997) / Lucinda M. Finley and Katherine Silbaugh -- McCarty v. Pheasant Run, Inc., 826 F.2d 1554 (7th Cir. 1987) / Molly Wilder and Hannah Brenner Johnson -- Lisa M. v. Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital, 907 P.2d 358 (Cal. 1995) / Christine M. Tamer and Stacey A. Tovino -- G.M.M. v. Kimpson, 116 F. Supp. 3d 126 (E.D.N.Y. 2015) / Twila L. Perry, Jennifer B. Wriggins and Sara Cressey -- Simpkins v. Grace Brethren Church of Delaware, Ohio, 75 N.E.3d 122 (Ohio 2016) / Jill Wieber Lens and Shaakirrah Sanders |
| Summary |
"By rewriting both canonical and lesser-known tort cases from a feminist perspective, this volume exposes gender and racial bias in how courts have categorized and evaluated harm stemming from prenatal malpractice, pregnancy loss, domestic violence, sexual assault and harassment, invasion of privacy, and the award of economic and non-economic damages. The rewritten opinions demonstrate that when confronted with gendered harm to women, courts have often distorted or misapplied conventional legal doctrine to diminish the harm or deny recovery. Bringing this implicit bias to the surface can make law students, and lawyers and judges who craft arguments and apply tort doctrines, more aware of inequalities of race, gender, class, and sexual orientation or identity. This volume shows the way forward to make the basic doctrines of tort law more responsive to the needs and perspectives of traditionally marginalized people, in ways that give greater value to harms that they disproportionately experience"--Back cover |
| Subject |
Torts -- United States -- Cases
|
|
Women -- Legal status, laws, etc. -- United States
|
|
Feminist jurisprudence -- United States
|
| Alt Author |
Chamallas, Martha, editor
|
|
Finley, Lucinda M., editor
|
| Unif Title |
Feminist judgments (Tort opinions)
|
| ISBN |
9781108706247 (paperback) |
|
110870624X (paperback) |
|
9781108484299 (hardback) |
|
1108484298 (hardback) |
|
9781108658331 (e-book) |
|
9781108694643 (PDF ebook) |
| OCLC # |
1155580877 |
|
