Not every petty dispute makes it into the halls of this esteemed Court. Here are some of the most recent entries in the loathed “denial pile.”
1. Federalist Society v. Trump, 24-CV-0176
UVA’s Federalist Society petitioned the District Court of Petty Complaints to enjoin President-Elect Trump from appointing Matt Gaetz as the Attorney General of his Justice Department, reasoning that one of their members should be appointed instead. FedSoc seeks our review of the District Court’s dismissal of their case for failure to state a petty claim. The petition for certiorari is denied. The Court of Petty Appeals will play no part in subjecting UVA Law students to the atrocious LinkedIn posts that would surely result from such an order.
Allard, C.J.?, dissenting.
I believe the District Court’s order dismissing the case did not adequately examine the pettiness of the Federalist Society’s claim. As recent and soon-to-be graduates in their twenties, their members are the ideal demographic for future federal judgeships and even possible candidates to replace Justices Thomas and Alito. At first glance, their demand that they also be awarded the top spot in the Department of Justice resounds in the heartland of pettiness. I would grant cert to more closely review the pettiness issue.
2. Section E v. Virginia Law Weekly, 24-CV-0052
Responding to Virginia Law Weekly’s September 11, 2024 issue where they received dead last in the annual softball team name ranking, the 1L members of Section E seek an injunction to prevent the editors of this competent and respectable organization from continuing to defame their team name. This court defers to the opinion of Section E’s professors that the name is dreadful and confusing. Because Section E’ stance is “clearly erroneous,” and defamation is undoubtedly permitted in this case, the petition for certiorari is denied.
Newton, J., concurring.
Certainly a better justice would recuse themselves from such a decision, but this is the Court of Petty Appeals, and in accordance with our jurisprudence, I must abide by my standards of petty review. Thus, I agree with the court’s denial of this petition for certiorari and encourage plaintiffs to refer to the “E” pages in Black’s Law Dictionary in the future.
Coleman, [C.]J., dissenting.
The Chief Justice should have the power to enjoin editors of this paper. Suits for injunctive relief implicating pieces in the Law Weekly ought to be permitted. In this case, there is good reason to think that Section E was mistreated. And they sought the proper forum by coming to this Court.
3. Pope Gregory XIII v. 3Ls, 24-CV-0109
A group of 3Ls brought suit against Pope Gregory XIII for his role in creating the Gregorian calendar. The 3Ls argue that Pope Gregory XIII’s calendar is responsible for this year’s late Thanksgiving, which is preventing them from fully 3LOLing. The District Court ordered Pope Gregory XIII to revise the calendar to accommodate 3Ls, around whom the world revolves. The deceased Pope seeks our review. We decline to disturb the District Court’s holding, as we believe it appropriately privileges 3Ls’ right to do as little work as possible over every other conceivable interest.
Allard, C.J.?, dissenting.
We recently held in In re the Ghastly Specter of Christopher Columbus that petty courts must supply a qualified interpreter in cases involving noncorporeal beings. See 77 U.Va 8 (2024). The record below does not make clear whether the court met this due process requirement. Accordingly, I believe our intervention is merited to ensure compliance with our supernatural jurisprudence.
Coleman, [C.]J., dissenting.
As a papist, I must side with the late pontiff. Without his work, we could see summer weather in November—unimaginable. And 3Ls have no standing to bring any suit. They live in absolute luxury.
4. Virginia Law Women v. Virginia Law Weekly, 24-CV-0213
Allen, J., concurring
Virginia Law Women filed suit seeking injunctive relief precluding the Virginia Law Weekly from using the acronym VLW, alongside a declaratory judgment that Virginia Law Women is the rightful owner of the trademark. The Law Weekly cross-filed, claiming the acronym for themselves. While each side has compelling legal arguments, we deny cert because we find the dispute too theoretical and unripe—with no showing that any employer, judge, alum, or other party has ever actually confused the two institutions. Parties may renew their arguments should the factual circumstances change.
5. In re Arlington Boulevard, 24-CV-0201
In an eminent domain action, the Law Weekly requested the District Court of Petty Complaints to force the City of Charlottesville to sell Arlington Boulevard to the Editorial Board. The Editorial Board sought exclusive use of the street as a free parking alternative to the exorbitantly priced D3 Lot. “Other students can use five spots, I guess. I need plenty of room.” the Editor-in-Chief wrote in an affidavit. Relying on our holding in In re Suspicious Military Exercise(s) at the Park at North Grounds, 75 U.Va 7 (2022) (ordering the annexation of the JAG School and its parking lot), the District Court ordered the property transferred to the Editorial Board, calculating its fair market value at $20. The City of Charlottesville seeks our review on only the market value calculation. We believe the District Court’s formula—asking the Editorial Board what they would like to pay for it—was appropriate. Accordingly, the petition for certiorari is denied.
Allard, C.J.?, dissenting.
Can’t we set the price a little lower? I’m strapped for cash this month. And it’s almost Christmas.
6. Non-Double Hoos v. GroupMe, 24-CV-0083
Wu, J., concurring
Non-Double Hoos who are new to UVA recently filed a class action in the District Court of Petty Appeals for injunctive relief against the use of GroupMe as a form of communication, reasoning that its terrible UI and notification system makes it an ineffective form of sending messages to other law students. They seek to review the District Court’s summary judgment which stated there was an insufficient complaint of injury and “no one would want to move to a platform like Discord.” The petition for certiorari is denied as the Court of Petty Appeals finds these students do not have a valid complaint of injury: it is better to be at home alone, ignoring the law school world anyway.
---