DEADLINE: Friday, September 29, 2017
The U.S. Feminist Judgments Project seeks contributors of rewritten judicial opinions and commentaries for an edited collection tentatively titled, Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Trusts and Estates 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 in 2016 by Cambridge University Press. Subsequent volumes in the series will focus on different areas of law and will be under review by Cambridge.
Volume editors Deborah Gordon, Browne C. Lewis and Carla Spivack seek prospective authors for twelve to fifteen rewritten family law opinions covering a range of topics. With the assistance of an advisory panel of distinguished trusts and estates scholars, the editors have selected decisions that have not appeared in other Feminist Judgment volumes; potential authors are welcome to suggest opinions which do not appear on the list, but inclusion of cases not already on the list is at the sole discretion of the editors and the advisory board. Further, as befits a T&E focused volume, authors should be prepared to rewrite cases in ways that bring into focus intersectional concerns beyond gender, such as race, class, disability, gender identity, age, sexual orientation, national origin, immigration status, and beyond.
Proposals must be either to 1.rewrite an opinion (subject to a 10,000-word limit) or 2.comment on a rewritten opinion (4,000-word limit). Rewritten decisions may be majority opinions, dissents, or concurrences. Authors of rewritten opinions should abide by the law and precedent in effect at the time of the original decision. Commentators should explain the original court decision, how the feminist judgment differs from the original judgment, and what difference a feminist judgment might have made. The volume editors conceive of feminism broadly and invite applications that seek to advance, complicate, or critique feminist ideas and advocacy. To apply, please attach a brief cv and please rank three choices from the list (below the fold).
List of Cases:
- In re Strittmater’s Estate, 53 A.2d 205 (N.J. 1947) (insane delusion)
- In re Will of Moses, 227 So. 2d at 831 (Miss. 1969) (undue influence)
- Estate of Wilson, 452 N.E.2d 1228 (N.Y. 1983) (charitable trust)
- Cruzan v. Missouri Dep’t of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990)
- Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Fogle, 419 S.E.2d 825, 826 (S.C. Ct. App. 1992) (slayer)
- O’Neal v. Wilkes, 439 S.E.2d 490 (Ga. 1994) (equitable adoption)
- Via v. Putnam, 656 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 1995) (pretermitted spouses, mutual wills, and dower)
- Estate of Myers, 594 N.W.2d 563 (Neb. 1999) (elective share and inter vivos trust)
- Egelhof v. Egelhof, 532 U.S. 141 (2001) (ERISA preemption)
- Drevenik v. Nardone, 862 A.2d 635 (Super. Ct. Pa. 2004) (spendthrift trust and child support)
- Reece v. Elliot, 208 S.W.3d 419, 423 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006) (antenuptial agreement)
- Khabbaz v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 930 A2d 1180 (N.H.2007) (reproductive technology)
- Karsenty v. Schoukroun, 959 A.2d 1147 (Md. 2008) (elective share)
Submit proposals to B.C.LEWIS@csuohio.edu.no later than Friday, September 29, 2017. The editors will notify accepted authors and commentators by Monday, October, 30, 2017.
The editors are committed to including a diverse group of authors in the volume. The Feminist Judgments Project is committed to including authors and commentators 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.
First drafts of rewritten opinions will be due on Friday, February 2, 2018. First drafts of commentaries will be due on Friday, March 9, 2018.