The Funding Cases
77 U.Va 1 (2024)
Once again, the Virginia Law Weekly is short on money. In an effort to silence the inconvenient pangs of a free press, the University of Virginia has cut the organization’s funding. While others eat and drink on the school’s dime, this Fourth Estate spends its money on entertaining and informing the student body. They even create a surplus by leaving leftover pizzas on the Brown Hall tables–which are acquired through an independent advertising agreement.
Being the litigious bunch they are, the Law Weekly managing board sued the school in a flurry of cases to secure adequate funds for the year’s operations. This Court finds them successful in every effort, and orders several million dollars be sent their way.
In re Staircase
Coleman, J., delivers the opinion of the court.
“One entered the city like a god; one scuttles in now like a rat.” When he uttered those words, historian and Yale professor Vincent Scully, Jr. had New York’s Penn Station in mind. But his sentiment is equally applicable to the Slaughter staircase of old. Under cover of summer break, the administration laid waste to the elegant and stately passage at the front of Slaughter Hall. In its place is nothing but a Stalinesque wall. As soon as the Law Weekly managing board learned of this change, the paper filed suit under Virginia’s landmark preservation laws and related Charlottesville ordinances. For this unlawful demolition of an historical landmark, the Court finds the University liable. It remands to the lower courts to determine the full value of punitive damages owed to the Law Weekly.
OGI Antitrust Litigation
Coleman, J., delivers the opinion of the court.
The Law Weekly filed suit under the Sherman Act against the University for the actions of its wholly owned subsidiary, the Office of Private Practice. The paper has successfully alleged a § 2 violation for the office’s distribution of OGI bids. Our first step is defining the relevant market. We characterize it as OGI bids, in which OPP controls 100 percent of the market. While the University argues that the true relevant market must include interviews obtained outside the OGI process, we disagree. Pre-OGI interviews are far more valuable and convenient, and are thus not substitutes for the budget OGI bids. The second step is determining whether there was anticompetitive conduct to further expand or maintain that monopoly. This anticompetitive conduct is self-evident. Reminiscent of a Soviet command economy, students are allotted a set number of bids and must submit their documents through a centralized clearinghouse. This Court now instructs the lower court to estimate damages, and would like to emphasize the fact that they are to be trebled.
Allard v. Student Affairs
Allard, C.J., delivers the opinion of the court.
This action follows this court’s ruling in CRONCH v. Conagra Brands, 76 U.Va 17 (2024) (denying motion to dismiss alimentary rights claim that alleged defendant’s sunflower seeds were too salty). Plaintiff-Chief Justice Andrew Allard declined to join CRONCH’s suit, opting to bring this claim against Student Affairs, the distributor of the salty snacks at issue in Conagra Brands. C. J. Allard claims to have suffered a dramatic increase in blood pressure as a result of consuming sunflower seeds he received from Student Affairs. Relying on our preliminary finding that the snack was unreasonably salty, C. J. Allard seeks to recover damages from Student Affairs for the medical costs incurred due to his increased blood pressure. Notwithstanding the lack of expert testimony supporting a causal connection between C. J. Allard’s condition and his consumption of Student Affairs’ snacks—or for that matter, the lack of any medical evidence whatsoever—we agree with Plaintiff-Chief Justice Allard. We’re pretty sure we gave notice to Student Affairs, so they’re in default now. Or something.
Students v. That Library Door that Locks in the Evening
Allard, C.J., delivers the opinion of the court.
On behalf of all law students, the Law Weekly brought a claim for tortious interference against the library door that locks at night. You know the one. The action may proceed under the Court’s in rem jurisdiction. We agree with the Law Weekly’s novel theory that the locking mechanism unreasonably interferes with students’ study time by requiring them to walk all the way to the main entrance when approaching the library from the northern half of Brown Hall. Calculating the student body’s aggregated lost time from additional walking multiplied by a reasonable market rate for study time, we find the damages at around $100 trillion. Because damages are limited by recently adopted tort reform legislation, we will reduce the award to $99 trillion.
ScoCo Shareholder Derivative Litigation
Coleman, J., delivers the opinion of the court.
As shareholders in ScoCo enterprises, the Law Weekly managing board brought a derivative claim for breach of fiduciary duties against the University. The claim arises out of a change in the ordering software that requires Mandy to type in the specifics of the order and the customer’s name, greatly delaying the provision of coffee and muffins. This Justice, wanting just a black coffee, witnessed the delays as our wonderful university employees had to specify the roast and type of milk for my self-serve coffee. The change fails either entire fairness or business judgment review. No manager in his right mind could possibly enact such a change. In addition to damages, this Court also orders reinstatement of the old system.
In re Missing Books
Allen, J., delivers the opinion of the court.
Cognizant of their dual roles as both defenders of the free press and students, in preparing for the new semester members of the managing board have noticed a spate of books nominally available in the library system but designated “missing.” Such status is worse than merely having a title unavailable, as it lulls the reader in need of a text into thinking it is available until further investigation reveals the subterfuge at play. With portions of the library (including the former VLR office) having already been taken for storage of an expanded faculty, the least the library could do is ensure the texts ostensibly within the collection are actually available to needy students. To be sure, it is likely the blame for these missing tomes lies in large part with patrons of the library, for (if not stealing) failing to follow proper procedure. Even so, we hold the administration jointly and severally liable for the damages accumulating from this harm to the student body, as they bear a responsibility for ensuring proper security measures and replacing the needed books which are lost or pilfered.