Law and History Review (LHR) is America's leading legal history journal that encompasses American, English, European, and ancient legal history issues, and proposes to further research and writing in the fields of the social history of law and the history of legal ideas and institutions. LHR features articles, essays, and commentaries by international scholars, reviews of important legal history volumes, and provides legal and social historians with distinguished scholarship in this increasingly recognized and respected field of study. LHR is the official journal of the American Society for Legal History.
The American Society for Legal History is a nonprofit membership organization dedicated to fostering scholarship, teaching, and study of Anglo-American and international law, legal systems, and institutions. Founded in 1956, the Society sponsors Law and History Review and the book-length monograph series, Studies in Legal History. As well, the Society holds an annual conference to promote scholarship and interaction among teachers, practitioners, and students interested in legal history. The Society also publishes a semiannual newsletter which highlights developments in this field.
This item is part of a JSTOR Collection.
For terms and use, please refer to our
Law and History Review
© 2009 Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois