University of Tulsa College of Law

Buske, Sheryl L.

English

Child Marriage in Tanzania: Loopholes, Duct Tape, and Lesser Evils

Faculty List

Pearl, M. Alexander

The New Existentialism in Indian Law

Tulsa Law Review 
Volume 60 
Numbers 1 & 2 Volume 60 Number 1 
Fall 2025 
Copyright Page 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr 
 Part of the Law Commons 
Recommended Citation 
Copyright Page, 60 Tulsa L. Rev. iv-Copyright page (2024). 
Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr/vol60/iss1/3 
This Front Matter is brought to you for free and open access by TU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for 
inclusion in Tulsa Law Review by an authorized editor of TU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please 
contact megan-donald@utulsa.edu. 
 
iv 
 The Tulsa Law Review (ISSN 1538-9979 USPS 66-9050) is published three times per 
academic year by students of the University of Tulsa College of Law. The Tulsa Law Review 
can be contacted at: Tulsa Law Review, The University of Tulsa College of Law, 3120 East 
Fourth Place, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 74104 or tlr@utulsa.edu. Text and citations in the Law Review 
conform to the Bluebook 21st edition. The Tulsa Law Review also employs the Chicago Manual 
of Style (16th ed.). The Tulsa Law Review is printed by Knowledge Works Global, Ltd. 
Periodicals postage paid at Tulsa, Oklahoma, and additional mailing offices.  
 
 SUBSCRIPTIONS: A one-year subscription is $30.00 ($35.00 foreign) payable in 
advance. Single issues are $15.00 payable in advance. Remittance must be made by U.S. Dollar 
drafts payable at a U.S. bank. Inquire for multi-volume prepaid rates and agency rates. 
Subscription requests that are received mid-volume may be subject to an additional postage 
and handling charge. All subscriptions are for the volume year and will be renewed 
automatically unless the subscriber provides timely notice of cancellation. Changes of address 
or notices of cancellation should be sent to: Business Manager, Tulsa Law Review, The 
University of Tulsa College of Law, 3120 East Fourth Place, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 74104 or 
tlr@utulsa.edu. 
 
 BACK ISSUES: Back issues of Volumes 42–59 can be purchased for $10.00 payable 
in advance. For back issues of Volumes 42–59, contact: Business Manager, Tulsa Law Review, 
The University of Tulsa College of Law, 3120 East Fourth Place, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 74104 or 
tlr@utulsa.edu. For back issues of Volumes 1–41, contact: William S. Hein and Company, 
Inc., 2350 North Forest Road, Getzville, New York, 14068, (800) 828-7571, or 
http://www.wshein.com. Back issues are available in PDF format at HeinOnline, 
http://heinonline.org.  
 
 MANUSCRIPTS: The Tulsa Law Review invites submission of unsolicited articles, 
essays, and book reviews from September 1 through April 30 each year. Manuscripts may be 
submitted to: Editor-in-Chief, Tulsa Law Review, The University of Tulsa College of Law, 3120 
East Fourth Place, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 74104 or tlr@utulsa.edu. Manuscripts will not be 
returned.  
 
 COPYRIGHT: Unless otherwise indicated, the Tulsa Law Review has granted 
permission for copies of each article in this volume to be made for classroom use in a 
nationally accredited law school, provided that (1) copies are distributed at or below cost, (2) 
author and journal are identified on each copy, (3) proper notice of copyright is affixed to 
each copy, and (4) the Tulsa Law Review is informed of each use.  
 
 For additional information about the Tulsa Law Review, please visit our website at 
http://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/journals.html.  
 
Copyright © 2024 by the University of Tulsa. 
 


Copyright Page

Tulsa Law Review 
Volume 60 
Numbers 1 & 2 Volume 60 Number 1 
Fall 2025 
Masthead 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr 
 Part of the Law Commons 
Recommended Citation 
Masthead, 60 Tulsa L. Rev. iii-Masthead (2024). 
Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr/vol60/iss1/2 
This Front Matter is brought to you for free and open access by TU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for 
inclusion in Tulsa Law Review by an authorized editor of TU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please 
contact megan-donald@utulsa.edu. 
 
iii 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Volume 60 Fall 2024                                  Numbers 1 & 2 
 
 
 
 
 
Editor-in-Chief 
STEPHANIE A. SMITH 
CHARNEY 
 
 
Executive Editor 
CASSIDY MONROE  
Executive Articles Editor 
BLAKE CHRISMER  
Notes & Comments Editor 
EVAN SHAW 
 
 
 
KIMBERLY ARLAND 
RHIANNA FAIRCHILD 
 
Articles Selection Editors 
 
KARLY FISHER 
JESSICA MALDONADO 
 
 
 
TRENT SIEVER 
COLE TAUBEL 
 
 
 
KATHRYN BURGESS 
JACOB JOHNSON 
 
Articles Editors 
 
COLTEN KIDD 
 
 
 
RYAN SILVA 
ALYSSA WILLIAMSON 
 
Business Manager 
ALEXANDRA WALSH-KING 
 
 
Symposium Editors 
DAISY EKLUND 
TAYLOR PEPPERWORTH 
 
 
Executive IT Editor 
JORDAN WALLACE 
 
 
 
CALLIE CRONE 
 
Staff Editors 
 
CONRAD HERDA 
 
 
 
SCOTT LOVE 
 
 
 
GAVIN ANDERSON 
SAMANTHA ATHEY 
CARSON BOWLES 
SARAH BRUBAKER 
RACHEL BURRELL 
WYNTER DAVIS 
TATE FARLEY 
MADISON FOSTER 
 
 
Associate Editors 
 
CHRISTOPHER GREEN 
GRANT HANSEL 
TRE’ANNA HINDS 
ERICA HOLT 
FORREST KINNEY 
JAKE LANDRY 
DALTON LONG 
GRACIE MA 
 
 
 
 
ALEXANDRA MORRISON 
CHLOE O’CONNELL 
BRAYDEN OGLESBY 
CHRISTOPER REPAK 
JADEN SNYDER 
EMILY TAYLOR 
LORI WHITLOCK 
MORGAN WILLIAMS 
 
 
Faculty Advisor 
GWENDOLYN SAVITZ 
 
 


Masthead

Galoob, Stephen

Tulsa Law Review 
Volume 60 
Numbers 1 & 2 Volume 60 Number 1 
Fall 2025 
Symposium Foreward 
Stephen Galoob 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr 
 Part of the Law Commons 
Recommended Citation 
Stephen Galoob, Symposium Foreward, 60 Tulsa L. Rev. vi-Foreward (2024). 
Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr/vol60/iss1/5 
This Front Matter is brought to you for free and open access by TU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for 
inclusion in Tulsa Law Review by an authorized editor of TU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please 
contact megan-donald@utulsa.edu. 
X6 GALOOB FINAL.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 1/29/25 11:35 AM 
 
vi 
SYMPOSIUM FOREWARD 
Stephen Galoob* 
The 2024 TULSA LAW REVIEW symposium, Contemporary Cannabis, explored the 
past, present, and future of cannabis reform. The location of this symposium was fitting, 
given Oklahoma’s place at the forefront of the commercial cannabis industry in the United 
States. Symposium participants included important voices in cannabis law and policy, as 
exemplified by the authors of each of the articles published in this issue of TULSA LAW 
REVIEW.  
Professor Robert Mikos is one of the most important voices in drug policy in the 
United States. His scholarship has introduced important questions regarding federalism 
and cannabis policy,1 and his casebook2 helped shape and define the entire field of canna-
bis law. Professor Mikos’s contribution to this symposium, The False Promise of Resched-
uling,3 examines the robustness and limits of the effort to reschedule marijuana under the 
Controlled Substances Act. He predicts that, even if rescheduling efforts survive a transi-
tion in presidential administrations, they will not provide the kind of wholesale changes 
that are needed to address the regulatory obstacles facing the contemporary cannabis in-
dustry. Ultimately, he contends, efforts at marijuana reform should be aimed at the politi-
cal process, rather than the administrative process.  
Professor Ryan Stoa’s contribution, The Next Wave of Legal Drug Production,4 syn-
thesizes the important lessons of the incipient transition from cannabis regulation with an 
eye toward advising (even-more-nascent) efforts to alter the legal status of psychedelic 
therapeutics. Extending his own prior research on the topic,5 Professor Stoa identifies a  
 
 
     *Professor of Law, University of Tulsa College of Law. Although I did not participate in the symposium, I 
would like to offer kudos to Chad Thurman and Cameron Skinner, who, as symposium editors for TULSA LAW 
REVIEW, convened a strong group of participants; Hillary Hurst and Stephanie Smith, the editors-in-chief of 
TULSA LAW REVIEW who helped organize the symposium and arranged publication of these proceedings, re-
spectively; Professor Gwen Savitz, the faculty advisor for TULSA LAW REVIEW who shepherded the symposium 
from its earliest stages; and the Office of the Provost of the University of Tulsa, which provided critical financial 
support for the event.  
 1. See, e.g., Robert A. Mikos, On the Limits of Supremacy: Medical Marijuana and the States’ Overlooked 
Power to Legalize Federal Crime, 62 VAND. L. REV. 1419 (2009); Robert A. Mikos, Preemption Under the 
Controlled Substances Act, 16 J. HEALTH CARE L. & POL’Y 5 (2013).  
 2.  Robert A. Mikos, MARIJUANA LAW, POLICY, AND AUTHORITY (2017).  
 3.  Robert A. Mikos, The False Promise of Rescheduling, 60 TULSA L. REV. 1 (2025). 
 4.  Ryan Stoa, The Next Wave of Legal Drug Production: What the Psychedelics Legalization Movement 
Can Learn from a Decade of Cannabis Regulation, 60 TULSA L. REV. 25 (2025).  
 5. See, e.g., Ryan Stoa, Equity in Cannabis Agriculture, 101 B.U. L. REV. 1135, 1148 (2021); Ryan Stoa, 
Emerging Issues in Cannabis Law: 2022 and Beyond, 46 SETON HALL LEGISL. J. 469, 473 (2022). 
X6 GALOOB FINAL.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 1/29/25  11:35 AM 
 
 vii 
series of successes in cannabis regulation that advocates for psychedelics should seek to 
follow, as well as a series of missteps that should be avoided.  
Professor Eli Wald’s Cannabis Law Practice: Lessons for the Legal Profession in 
the Twenty-First Century6 builds on insights from his prior scholarship regarding cannabis 
law practice7 and the sociology of law firm practice8 to analyze how prominent American 
law firms are (tepidly) entering cannabis practice. While marijuana law practice was ini-
tially “dominated” by “criminal defense lawyers and marijuana activists,” the field has 
“now become of interest to large law firms and their corporate hemisphere lawyers.”9 Pro-
fessor Wald notes that the dynamics of the cannabis industry (which is limited to specific 
states, given federal prohibition) “limits the… synergies common, and often essential to, 
the practice of large law firms”10 and “dampen[s] the economies of scale” that “tradition-
ally give[] Big Law an advantage in the corporate legal services market.”11 That large law 
firms are willing “to enter the field of cannabis law before the rise of big entity clients and 
the materialization of big money” indicates a “possible sea-change in the profession, one 
in which competitive forces, client service, and maximization of profits-per-equity-part-
ners drive out old, traditional notions of professionalism and respectability.”12  
 
 
 
 
 6.  Eli Wald, Cannabis Law Practice: Lessons for the Legal Profession in the Twenty-First Century, 60 
TULSA L. REV. 51 (2025).  
 7. See, e.g., Sam Kamin & Eli Wald, Marijuana Lawyers: Outlaws or Crusaders, 91 OR. L. REV. 869 
(2013); Eli Wald et al., Representing Clients in the Marijuana Industry: Navigating State and Federal Rules, 
44(8) COLO. LAW. 61 (2015). 
 8. See, e.g., Eli Wald, The Rise and Fall of the WASP and Jewish Law Firms, 60 STAN. L. REV. 1803 (2008); 
Eli Wald, The Rise of the Jewish Law Firm or Is the Jewish Law Firm Generic? 76 UMKC L. REV. 885, 914–18 
(2008); Eli Wald, Formation Without Identity: Avoiding a Wrong Turn in the Professionalism Movement, 89 
UMKC L. REV. 685 (2021); Eli Wald, Getting In and Out of the House: The Worlds of In-House Counsel, Big 
Law, and Emerging Career Trajectories of In-House Lawyers, 88 FORDHAM L. REV. 1765 (2020); Eli Wald, 
Glass Ceilings and Dead Ends: Professional Ideologies, Gender Stereotypes, and the Future of Women Lawyers 
at Large Law Firms, 78 FORDHAM L. REV. 2245 (2010); Russell G. Pearce & Eli Wald, The Relational Infra-
structure of Law Firm Regulation: Is the Death of Big Law Greatly Exaggerated?, 42 HOFSTRA L. REV. 109 
(2013). 
 9. Wald, supra note 6, at 53. 
 10. Id. at 72.  
 11.  Id. at 73.  
 12.  Id. at 84.  


Symposium Foreward

Smith Charney, Stephanie A.

Labor of Love, or Profit? How the Parental Rights Argument Threatens to Upend Child Labor Regulation in America

Mikos, Robert A.

The False Promise of Rescheduling

Chrismer, Blake A.

In Defense of Appropriation Art: An Analysis of Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith

Kidd, Colten

Distressed and Not OK: How and Why Oklahoma\u27s Physical Manifestation Requirement for Recovery of Emotional Harm Should Be Eliminated

University of Tulsa

Not a member yet