Dickinson Law Review

The Dickinson Law Review invites authors to apply for its spring 2024 symposium issue about all aspects of Environment, Social & Governance Movement. Applications are due on August 7th and will receive a response by August 10th. Please email nvg5378@psu.edu for more information.

systemic pressures placed on them in their decision-making processes, and the future of this trend in light of recent Supreme Court jurisprudence. Read the article here: lnkd.in/g5cjMwQn

In her Issue 3 article, "The Feminist-Neutrality Paradox, ALISSA GOMEZ, of the University of Houston Law Center, writing for our special Symposium issue discusses how the decisions of female judges are largely the same as those of their male counterparts because of

exploring a diverse range of topics including, but not limited to: women in the judiciary, a book review of a book relating to the death penalty in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the legal status of interns under the Fair Labor Standards Act.  #dickinsonlawreview

The Dickinson Law Review is proud to announce that Issue 3 of Volume 127 is now available! You can view the issue at bitly.ws/IVcd We are excited to publish this issue and volume with a wonderful line-up of authors of articles, essays, book reviews, and comments,

Further, our goal moving forward is to create a forum that discusses legal issues in a more flexible and timely format. Visit our new website here: bit.ly/3VxTP7U.

Today, in keeping with this core principle, we are proud to announce the official launch of our new website, dickinsonlawreview.org. Here, we aim to provide an easily accessible location for over 100 years of DLR publications.

In 1897, the inaugural issue of the Dickinson Law Review began with a note establishing the journal’s purpose: to provide a valuable platform to lawyers and scholars.

Did you know? The Supreme Court used a case against the Ohio Governor after the #KentStateMassacre to expand the doctrine of #QualifiedImmunity. My @IJ colleague Anya and I discuss how in our paper, Unqualified Immunity, in the @DickinsonLRev. ideas.dickinsonlaw.psu.edu/cgi/viewconten…

You can find information on the Podcast, as well as the Law Review, at our website: lnkd.in/d7a6wvya Listen on Spotify: spoti.fi/3ArS5mEListen on Apple Podcasts: apple.co/40v59lP Subscribe to get notified of new episodes!

The podcast seeks to extend viewership and audience of legal scholarship into the mainstream by tackling issues in a more digestible format.

We at the Dickinson Law Review are proud to announce the launch of the Dickinson Law Review podcast. The Dickinson Law Review podcast is dedicated to engaging with legal experts and scholars in important conversations about legal issues, academia, legal education, and more.

second, other jurisdictions have favorably cited to the doctrine in wage and employment disputes; and third, the doctrine helps to create a barrier from unlimited disputes arising against employers. Read her comment here: bit.ly/408li0u

Stahl analyzes the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's rejection of the de minimis exception. She also argues that Pennsylvania should not eliminate the de minimis exception under state wage and hour laws because: first, the doctrine has utility and roots in Pennsylvania law;

In our third Editor spotlight of Volume 127, Issue 2, Lauren Stahl, Comments Editor at the @DickinsonLRev, recently published her comment "Following in California’s Footsteps?: Pennsylvania Eliminates the De Minimis Exception in State Wage and Hour Claims."

This would minimize gender discrimination as an unintended consequence of Title IX. Read her comment here: bit.ly/3GFicdw

She argues for adding a fourth prong to the three-part test for equality in athletic participation promulgated by Office of Civil Rights, requiring institutions with coeducational teams to use those teams to achieve substantial proportionality.

In our second Editor spotlight of Volume 127, Issue 2, Alexa Potts, Articles Editor at the Dickinson Law Review, recently published her comment "Shooting to Minimize Gender Discrimination as an Unintended Consequence of Title IX."

In her article, she argues that more states should eliminate the de minimis doctrine, as it is is inconsistent with the purpose of wage and hour laws and is no longer relevant. Read here: bit.ly/3MvL6jO

In our first Editor spotlight of Volume 127, Issue 2, Abbie Britton, Comments Editor at the Dickinson Law Review, recently published her comment "It’s About Time: Rejection of the De Minimis Doctrine in State Wage and Hour Laws."