Frances Lewis Law Center

Faculty News

Wednesday, April 24, 2019

Professor Chris Seaman Presents at U.S. Patent Office

Professor Chris Seaman presented a new work-in-progress entitled “Noncompete Agreements and Other Post-Employment Restraints on Competition: Empirical Evidence from Trade Secret Litigation,” at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in Alexandria, VA, on April 12, 2019.  Professor Seaman’s presentation was part of the Roundtable on Empirical Methods in Intellectual Property, which is intended to give … Continue reading Professor Chris Seaman Presents at U.S. Patent Office

Wednesday, March 13, 2019

Professor Sam Calhoun’s Article a Top Ten SSRN Download

A new article by Washington and Lee law professor Sam Calhoun, published in the Washington and Lee Law Review Online, is a top ten download on SSRN. The article, “If Separation of Church and State Doesn’t Demand Separating Religion from Politics, Does Christian Doctrine Require It?,” is a response to several reactions to Prof. Calhoun’s … Continue reading Professor Sam Calhoun’s Article a Top Ten SSRN Download

Thursday, February 28, 2019

Professor Mark Drumbl Lectures in Cambridge and The Hague

Mark Drumbl gave a public lecture at Cambridge University on January 18, 2019. He presented his research on the war crime of intentional destruction of cultural property. Audio of the lecture is available here. Publication of this project is forthcoming in the Journal of International Criminal Justice. Drumbl begins in Timbuktu, Mali, where in 2012 … Continue reading Professor Mark Drumbl Lectures in Cambridge and The Hague

Monday, October 29, 2018

Professor Mark Drumbl gives lectures in Australia, Kenya, Czech Republic

Mark Drumbl taught an intensive course on ‘Victims, International Law, and Mass Atrocity’ at Monash University in Melbourne Australia in August 2018. While there, he also had a chance to visit Griffith University in Brisbane Australia where he participated in a book launch and also gave a talk on a recent project he has begun … Continue reading Professor Mark Drumbl gives lectures in Australia, Kenya, Czech Republic

Monday, October 29, 2018

Professor Michelle Drumbl Presents on Taxpayer Rights

Washington and Lee law professor and Tax Clinic director Michelle Drumbl presented at Temple Law School on Oct. 26 as part of the Temple Law Review symposium, “Taxpayer Rights in the United States: All the Angles.” Prof. Drumbl appeared on the panel “Operationalizing Taxpayer Rights: IRS Efforts and Experiences of Lawyers Who Represent Clients Pro … Continue reading Professor Michelle Drumbl Presents on Taxpayer Rights

Recent Publications

Alex Zhang et al.

Sustainable and Open Access to Valuable Legal Research Information: A New Framework

This article evaluates the current status of access to foreign and international legal research information, analyzes the challenges that information providers have experienced in providing valuable and sustainable access, and proposes a model that would help create and facilitate effective and sustainable access to valuable foreign, comparative, and international legal information.

Jill M. Fraley

Liability for Unintentional Nuisances: How the Restatement of Torts Almost Negligently Killed the Right to Exclude in Property Law

This article argues that nuisance was historically unique in tort law because of its special role in protecting property rights.' In other words, nuisance historically had distinct features addressed to the special situation of land. Most importantly, nuisance protected the right to exclude in a way that no other cause of action did. The Second Restatement's change then diminished our rights to private property to the extent that it has been adopted. The majority of courts retain the more logical and defensible position--that property rights are special and nuisance encompasses something more than the idea of negligence.

Sarah C. Haan

Facebook and the Identity Business

Facebook revealed in September 2017 that Russian-linked groups had waged a disinformation campaign on its platform to influence the 2016 election. The news caused public outcry and led to a series of self-regulating responses from Facebook and other social media companies. In a new work-in-progress, I will examine Facebook’s regulation of political speech and, more broadly, what it means for political discourse to be regulated through private ordering by a global, profit-seeking, public company. My conclusions are different from those of some other scholars, in part because I give sharp focus to Facebook as a business actor.

Sarah C. Haan

Facebook's Alternative Facts

In this short essay, I argue that Facebook’s adoption of the alternative-facts frame potentially contributes to the divisiveness that has made social media misinformation a powerful digital tool. Facebook’s choice to present information as “facts” and “alternative facts” endorses a binary system in which all information can be divided between moral or tribal categories—“bad” versus “good” speech, as Sandberg put it in her testimony to Congress. As we will see, Facebook’s related-articles strategy adopts this binary construction, offering a both-sides News Feed that encourages users to view information as cleaving along natural moral or political divisions.

Nora V. Demleitner

Is Supervised Release Tolled Retrospective to the Start of an Unrelated Detention if the Defendant Is Credited with Time Served upon Sentencing for the New Offense?

The district court sentenced Jason Mont for violating his supervised release conditions after a state conviction and sentence that credited him for time in pretrial detention served while he was on supervised release. Mont challenges the court’s exercise of jurisdiction, arguing that 18 U.S.C. § 3624(e) does not permit the court to reach backward to find that supervised release was tolled once he received credit for his pretrial detention at sentencing. Petitioner and respondent disagree about the interpretation of the language and structure of Section 3624(e). While the government relies heavily on the purpose of supervised release, petitioner notes that the district court could have prevented its jurisdiction from lapsing had it issued a summons or warrant prior to the end of his supervised release, as indicated in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(i). Such summons or warrant would have allowed the court to hold the violations hearing even after supervised release ended.