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.”
1Ls v. Legal Research & Writing Professors, 23-CV-0064.
1L petitioners seek review of the lower court’s opinion denying their request for an injunction against the Law School’s LRW professors preventing them from assigning additional memos and other writing assignments. The petition for certiorari is denied. The Court finds no reason to disturb the trial court’s application of the principle that 1Ls must always lose.
Morse, C.J., concurring in the result. I agree with the Court’s decision to deny this petition for certiorari but write separately to urge an alternate grounds for denial. Insofar as LRW fellows are also parties to this suit, and assuming (as any reasonable person would) that these LRW fellows are gunners, they must lose based on this Court’s rule of a more recent vintage: Gunners always lose.
Allard, J., dissenting. I would grant certiorari in this case, as I am hoping and praying that petitioners have a plausible legal argument that will save me from my work as a Writing Fellow. I can’t believe the 1Ls are my only hope, but here we are.
Gunners v. The Rest of Us, 23-CV-0124.
A collection of Law School gunners seek an injunction against being described as gunners, alleging that there is a negative connotation to the term and requesting this Court require the Law School community describe them as “dart-throwers,” “boomerangers,” or “spitballers.” Cert is denied because there is, as a matter of law, a negative connotation to being a gunner.
Allard, J., with whom Foss, J. joins, dissenting. I would grant certiorari in this case to give respondents the opportunity to suggest an even worse term for gunners.
Students of UVA Law v. Sidley Austin Café, 23-CV-0230.
The student body seeks a writ of mandamus against the Sidley Austin Café, requiring them to extend hours past 2:00 p.m. and stay open until at least 11:00 p.m. Petitioners allege that they cannot make it through the 3:40 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. window without a cup of coffee from Greenberry’s in tow. Cert is denied because Mandy is a queen and can do no wrong. Further, students in need of an afternoon boost can bring their own mug to MyLab for free coffee.
Students of the Night v. Dugas, 23-CV-0444. The Students of the Night allege that the Flex Exam rules unconstitutionally discriminate against the nocturnal. Cert is denied because law firms also require work during the day.
Foss, J., dissenting. I would grant certiorari in this case because law firms require work during all hours of every day. Students should be required to take at least one Flex Exam during the window of 2 a.m. to 4 a.m.
In re The Pavilion at North Grounds Renters, 23-CV-0784.
The tenants of the “Pav'' seek an injunction to prevent rate increases for the coming year, due to the numerous failing amenities and inability to supply basic utilities in the building. Cert is denied because the law does not accommodate the eggshell plaintiff, and any reasonable person would have expected this outcome after reading a single review of the property.
The Public Interest Law Association (PILA) v. People Who Snuck Alcohol into The Silent Auction, 23-CV-0154.
The Public Interest Law Association seeks compensatory and punitive damages from law students who, allegedly, snuck their own alcohol into the PILA silent auction on November 4, 2023. Cert is denied. PILA chose to charge law students, most of whom are jobless and swimming in student loans, $40 a ticket to attend an event that then charges $8 for a Bud Light. This court supports the fiscal responsibility displayed by putting Fireball shooters in your socks.
Brown, J., dissenting. Justice Foss rightly identifies the logic at play in this case, but reaches the wrong conclusion. PILA had every reason to expect that people would bring their own drinks to the Silent Auction. It is a tradition as old as the PILA Ball itself. For them to now seek relief against a problem entirely of their own design is unbelievably petty. What jurisdiction is this Court left with, if not over this, the most trivial of disputes? Accordingly, I would grant certiorari.
The People v. Restroom Stall Manufacturers Everywhere, 23-CV-0451.
A group of disgruntled restroom users, collectively “The People,” bring this action seeking to enjoin Restroom Stall Manufacturers Everywhere from placing the slit in a public bathroom stall door to line up perfectly with the toilet within the stall. Plaintiffs allege that the slit is not necessary to the structural integrity of the door, and alternatively if the slit is necessary, the slit does not need to be directly in front of the toilet where The People are then left exposed to those on the other side of the door to peer through, albeit, unintentionally. Cert is denied not because we disagree with this action, but because this court lacks proper jurisdiction over this matter, shitty as it may be.
In re Reykjanes Peninsula Volcano, 23-CV-0102.
A certain Features Editor was supposed to travel to Iceland last week until an incredibly pesky earthquake swarm broke out on the Reykjanes Peninsula in the country’s southwest. This prompted said anxious Features Editor to cancel his impulsive trip out of fears that a volcano would erupt, he’d get stuck on the island, and fail out of 2L. The volcano here seeks eruptive relief so that it can actually explode and make said Features Editor feel justified in canceling his trip. Cert is denied because it’s much funnier for Ethan to have missed his trip for no good reason at all.
Virginia Law Review and Virginia Journal of International Law v. Pool Hall Junkies, 23-CV-0253.
The student-run journal, the Virginia Law Review (VLR) and Virginia Journal of International Law (VJIL) seek an injunction against a class of self-described “pool sharks” who have refused to do any cite checks while continuing to use the pool tables in the journals’ combined office. We deny the journals’ petition for certiorari because Journals are almost entirely populated by gunners, and gunners always lose. Also, pool is tight.
UVA Law Students v. Dean Goluboff, 23-CV-2004.
The student body of the University of Virginia School of Law again seeks an injunction against Dean Risa Golubuff to prevent her from stepping down as Dean of the Law School. The students correctly note that Dean Golubough has presided over a period of stability, happiness, and growth in UVA Law’s prestige. While it is of course true that Dean Gabblehuff has done an excellent job and is widely-loved, we are eager to see what kind of shenanigans Dean Gobblebuff gets up to. We expect we could run across her in a high-stakes backroom card game in Tokyo, surfing big ones in Waimea Bay, apprenticing as a cobbler in Florence, or teaching Francis Ngannou how to improve his boxing game on a mountainside in the Himalayas. We eagerly await her next epic adventure. Any of which, we are sure, will be way more fun than responding to angsty law students’ emails about why their favorite snacks are not in the Snack Office. Also didn’t Petitioners already bring this case? And win? Cert is accordingly denied.
Blue Lot Permit Holders v. The Giant Sports Van That Takes Up Ten Spaces, 23-CV-1984.
The Blue Lot permit holders bring this suit against that Giant Van from Hoo Sports that takes up a frankly absurd number of parking spaces and leaves all students—especially 3Ls with only afternoon classes—fighting over the last crumbs of space like a high-stakes game of musical chairs. While this Court considered granting cert, we found the amicus brief from D3 permit holders persuasive in our denial. Their brief argues that you get what you pay for. There can be nothing more petty than paying over $300 extra to avoid walking up a single flight of stairs. Furthermore, the proper defendant for this suit is not the van itself, but rather UVA Parking Services, UVA Athletics, or both. Those are the proper decision making bodies. For these reasons, we must deny cert and request that parties refile their suit against the proper defendants. Go big or go home.