Geological Observatory of Coldigioco
PennState, The Dickinson School of Law: Penn State Law eLibraryNot a member yet
7581 research outputs found
Sort by
Food and Drug Regulation: Statutory and Regulatory Supplement (2023)
No full textThis Statutory and Regulatory Supplement is intended for use with its companion casebook, Food and Drug Regulation: A Statutory Approach (2021). This is not a traditional statutory supplement. Instead, it contains selected, aggressively edited provisions of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), related statutes, and the Code of Federal Regulations. The Supplement includes all provisions assigned as reading in the casebook, as well as a few additional provisions that some professors may wish to cover. The excerpts are designed to be teachable rather tha
The Feminist-Neutrality Paradox
No full textThis Symposium asks us to contemplate women’s role in the judiciary. Female judges are vital to a well-functioning third branch of government given the long-documented link between diversity and judicial legitimacy. Beyond appearances, however, the Article explores the reasons why so many empirical studies have shown that judges do not decide cases differently on account of their gender. This Article describes how women must act like men to gain acceptance into the male-dominated judicial sphere and then are expected to apply precedent that has been overwhelmingly decided by men. In other words, the decisions of female (and feminist) judges are largely the same as those of their male counterparts because of systemic pressures on female judges to conform to the unstated male norm under the guise of neutrality and the rule of law. These observations are not new. But in the wake of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization— the case that erased the constitutional right to abortion with little concern for the appearance of judicial neutrality or stare decisis—this Article asks whether feminists should stop playing by the rules
Enticing the Supreme Court to Hold That Physical Contact is Not Required to Violate the Child Enticement Statute
No full textThe sexual exploitation of children is a growing problem in the United States. Fifty years ago, parents feared their child getting kidnapped or approached by a predator in the park. Parents today fear their child being preyed upon through the internet. As technology continues to advance, child predators satisfy their depraved desires without ever stepping foot near their victim. In response to the danger of the sexual exploitation of children, the federal government enacted the child enticement statute, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). The statute criminalizes the enticement of a minor to engage in sexual activity. Because the federal code does not define “sexual activity” for purposes of § 2422(b), courts are left to decipher whether the predator must entice the minor to engage in physical contact. Three circuits have definitively spoken on this issue. The Seventh Circuit held that sexual activity requires physical contact. The Fourth and Eleventh Circuits have both held that physical contact is not required to implicate § 2422(b). This Comment demonstrates through methods of statutory interpretation, legislative history, and congressional intent that § 2422(b) does not require physical contact. This Comment proposes that the Supreme Court grant certiorari and hold that § 2422(b) does not require interpersonal physical contact
Policy’s Place in Pedestrian Infrastructure
No full textAngie Schmitt’s Right of Way: Race, Class, and the Silent Epidemic of Pedestrian Deaths in America delves into the complex, multi-layered phenomenon of how traffic infrastructure and policies systematically disadvantage pedestrians and contribute to thousands of deaths and injuries each year. Despite the breadth of the problem and its often-technical aspects, Schmitt presents the problem in an engaging and approachable manner through a step-by-step analysis combining background, statistics, and anecdotes. While Right of Way tends to focus on infrastructure design, it offers much for legal scholars, lawyers, and policymakers. Schmitt addresses several policy issues at length in the book. But this discussion raises new questions and illuminates potential connections to other areas of the law. In particular, recent criminal law scholarship addresses the interplay between traffic policy and criminal law enforcement, and related scholarship reveals the scope of the misdemeanor and infraction criminal justice systems and their impact on communities. Schmitt’s work illustrates the broader phenomena addressed in this research and can further inform work in this area. This review parses out several of these issues and presents the beginnings of a research agenda inspired by Schmitt’s discussion. Finally, this review runs with one of the ideas suggested in the research agenda through a brief discussion of how Right of Way exemplifies a phenomenon of laws as half-measures—policy measures that are politically appealing or cost-effective that fail to meaningfully address social problems yet are presented as solutions. These half-measures flourish in the policy space devoted to pedestrian infrastructure, and this review identifies and critiques examples of these policies while identifying more comprehensive solutions
The Microsoft Litigation’s Lessons for United States v. Google
No full textThe United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and three overlapping groups of states have filed federal antitrust cases alleging Google has monopolized internet search, search advertising, internet advertising technologies, and app distribution on Android phones. In this Article, we focus on the DOJ’s claims that Google has used contracts with tech firms that distribute Google’s search services in order to exclude rival search providers and thus to monopolize the markets for search and search advertising—the two sides of Google’s search platform. The primary mechanisms of exclusion, according to the DOJ, are the many contracts Google has used to secure its status as the default search engine at all major search access points. The complaint echoes the DOJ’s claims two decades ago that Microsoft illegally maintained its monopoly in personal computer operating systems by forming exclusionary contracts with distributors of web browsers, and by tying its Internet Explorer browser to Windows. The gist of the case was that Microsoft had used exclusionary tactics to thwart the competitive threat Netscape’s Navigator browser and Sun Microsystems’ Java programming technologies—both forms of “middleware”—posed to the Windows monopoly. In this Article, we argue that the treatment of market definition, exclusionary contracting, causation, and remedies in the D.C. Circuit’s Microsoft decision has important lessons for the Google litigation
Stalling a Norm\u27s Trajectory?: Revisiting U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 on Libya and its Ramifications for the Principle of the Responsibility to Protect
No full text
