This paper explores what case is assigned to associates in there constructions. It has been generally accepted that T agrees with an associate under probe goal relation in there constructions. This argument is supported bt the fact that T reflects uninterpretable number feature of the associate. This matters here. In the minimalist view, Case assignment takes place with probe goal agreement. Generally speaking, T is responsible for Nominative Case and transitive V is for Accusative Case. On the basis of these assumptions, the associate should obtain Nominative case however this prediction is out by following examples. (1) a. There is only me/*I in the room. b. There are only us. c. There’s certainly her/she. As clearly to say, associates with Nominative Case are certainly not licensed but represented with Accusative Case form. These data contradict the assumption made by Chomsky(2000). What interesting is that T agrees with associates with number, Nominative case is assigned to expletive there in the sentence. There fore we must figure out why Nominative Case assignment is impossible and how associates is checked its case in there constructions.
