Court of Petty Appeals: Law Weekly v. The Swarm of Murderous Bees, et al.

Law Weekly 
v. 
The Swarm of Murderous Bees, et al. 
77 U.Va 2 (2024)


Allard, C.J., delivered the opinion of the court.

Since the first human emerged from a damp cavern thousands of years ago, our species has warred with the many beasts and pests with whom we share the Earth. Most often, these wars were waged in nature—in the forest, atop a mountain, at sea. Today, we find ourselves in a very different venue: the courtroom.

Factual Background

This case comes before us after several 1Ls sued the Law Weekly in negligence for injuries sustained from bee stings while visiting their table at the Student Activities Fair. Pursuant to Petty Rule of Civil Procedure 5, the Law Weekly responded with an even pettier crossclaim against the Bees, alleging trespass, assault, conversion, and apian malpractice.

The undisputed facts of the case are as follows. Last Friday, August 30, Noah Coco ’26 and Andrew Allard ’25 hosted a table at the Student Activities Fair as agents of the Law Weekly. Out of the kindness of their hearts—and, allegedly, desperation for new writers and editors—they offered free ice cream and root beer to all students visiting their stand. The resulting abundance of sugar attracted a swarm of dozens of bees, which descended upon the Law Weekly’s table. Several students were stung, and Noah and Andrew’s presentation on the merits of writing for the Law Weekly was interrupted.[1] This case followed.

Legal Analysis

I

We begin with the 1Ls’ negligence claim. The 1Ls allege that, in offering such sugary treats, the Law Weekly breached its duty of care toward students visiting their table. Having not completed more than two weeks of torts, the 1Ls reasoned that the arrival of the Bees was reasonably foreseeable, and the Law Weekly’s failure to alert students to the risk of bee stings constitutes actionable negligence.

The Law Weekly did not dispute the allegations of negligence and instead moved to dismiss the suit, relying on this Court’s repeated holding that 1Ls always lose. See, e.g., Virginia v. Harvard L. Rev. Ass’n, 76 U.Va 4 (2023) (“1Ls must always lose.”); Gay Section H Law Weekly Staff v. Lake, 75 U.Va 16 (2023) (Lake, C.J., concurring) (“1Ls may have rights when it is funnier for them to win . . . .”). In response, the 1Ls protest that some LL.M. students also visited the Law Weekly’s table.

Impressively, the 1Ls have raised an issue of first impression—we have never decided whether the rule that 1Ls must always lose extends to LL.M. students. Nevertheless, we decline to decide the issue in the instant case. As the Law Weekly correctly noted, no LL.M. students joined the litigation brought by the 1Ls, so the complaint may properly be dismissed under the existing rule. We also prefer this holding as it does not require us to re-open our Torts notes. The 1Ls’ negligence claim is accordingly dismissed.

II

We now move to the Law Weekly’s crossclaims against the Bees. Students of history will surely note that this is not the first case of human-against-bee litigation. But unlike the infamous class action suit from the film which shall remain unnamed, this time,[2] those stinging bastards are not going to win.

The Law Weekly relies on several theories of harm, including trespass, assault, conversion, and malpractice. The Bees, appearing pro se, responded “Bzzzzz bzz buzz buzz bzzzzzz bzz.” The Court was unable to identify a translator for the Bees, and accordingly allowed the Law Weekly to proceed in a quasi-ex parte proceeding. At the closing of argument, the Law Weekly moved for summary judgment on all claims. We assume, based on their angry flight patterns, that the Bees likewise moved for summary judgment.

Beginning with the trespass claim, we are unpersuaded by the Law Weekly’s arguments. Much as they may wish otherwise, the Law Weekly holds no property rights over Spies Garden, and they did not acquire one by simply propping up a folding table. The Law Weekly thus lacks standing to bring this trespass claim. Even if the Law Weekly could plausibly claim a right to exclude others from Spies Garden, the Court notes sua sponte that the Bees have a plausible “I’m not touching you” defense, as they never landed on the Law Weekly’s table. We believe that the Bees are—at best—a nuisance. Accordingly, we find in the Bees’ favor as to the Law Weekly’s trespass claim.

Secondly, turning to the alleged assault, we hold that the Bees are liable. The Law Weekly presented overwhelming evidence to support their assault claim, including testimony from the 1Ls that Andrew and Noah’s pitch for the paper became “bumbling and a little Seinfeldian” as a result of the swarming Bees. While neither Andrew nor Noah were stung by the Bees, the Court notes that the “I’m not touching you” defense does not extend to assault; the “imminent apprehension” of “harmful or offensive contact” is sufficient to sustain an assault claim. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 21. While it is unclear whether the Bees are capable of the requisite intent to support an assault claim, we take their presence before the Court as sufficient evidence of their sentience.[3] The Law Weekly’s motion for summary judgment as to the assault claim is accordingly granted.

Thirdly, we move to the conversion claim. The Law Weekly alleges that the Bees unlawfully took sugar from their snacks with the intent to regurgitate it to produce honey. While we believe that the Law Weekly has sufficiently alleged the elements of a conversion claim, the Court notes—again sua sponte—that bees collectively hold an easement by prescription against humanity for the use of their sugar in honey production. Bees have been at it since at least 7,000 B.C. See Honey Ass’n, A Brief History of Honey (accessed Sep. 2, 2024). We believe their open and adverse collection of sugary chattels for the past few millennia is sufficient to overcome the Law Weekly’s conversion claim.

Lastly, we examine the Law Weekly’s claim for apian malpractice. Actually, no we don’t. Seriously? They’re bees. They like sugar. It’s what they do. Be glad they didn’t sting you.

The 1Ls’ claims are accordingly DISMISSED, and the Law Weekly’s claims are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Court will hear arguments as to damages in a subsequent hearing to be scheduled. So ordered.


---

[1] Any diminution in the quality of their presentation was due entirely to the Bee’s conduct and has nothing to do with the veracity of its content.

[2] Spoiler alert.

[3] Ow! One just stung me.

Hot Bench: Adam Hemmeter '26

Hi Adam, welcome to Hot Bench! Thanks for being here today. Let’s start with an introduction—tell us where you’re from and where you went for undergrad.

Thanks for having me! I was born and raised in Maryland and am a product of Baltimore County Public Schools. My parents were high school sweethearts who, like my siblings and I, graduated from Dulaney High School in Timonium, Maryland. It was a great place to grow up, and my entire family still lives in the area to this day. Based on all of that, the University of Maryland was a natural fit for me, and I absolutely loved my time there as an undergrad. In my family, I am the oldest of my generation, and since I attended UMD, one of my siblings and four of my cousins have followed suit.

A family of Marylanders! And now you’re at UVA. Oh, how the turns have tabled. So what did you study at UMD? Did you always have your sights on law school?

I have always loved math and science, so I came into college hoping to major in some type of engineering. Eventually, I settled on materials science and engineering, which gave me the opportunity to learn about cutting-edge technology related to things like energy storage and nuclear power. As much as I loved learning about these areas, I knew that a career in engineering was not for me, so I decided to work as a management consultant in Washington, D.C., after college. There are no lawyers in my family, and I did not even consider applying to law school until I had worked for a couple years and was ready for a career shift. Eventually, I realized that I wanted to position myself at the intersection of technology, policy, and business. The law is fundamental to each of those areas so I decided to take a chance and apply to law school to see where that would lead me. It was, I think, the best decision I could have made, and I have absolutely loved my time so far in law school.

That’s a really unique combination—and one that has been especially relevant during our time in law school! What role do you think technology will play in the future of the legal profession?

Technology has always played a role in the law, but I believe that this connection will only become more apparent and more critical in the coming years. The legal profession will need to keep up with new and emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, which present enormous potential for innovation but also pose serious risks in areas such as individual privacy. These same technologies will likely have enormous implications on how the law itself is practiced, particularly when it comes to things like legal research. I think it will be crucial for new lawyers to have a strong understanding of both the underlying legal concepts and the new technologies that will one day become standard in every industry. I also believe that these new technologies will have big implications with respect to law firms’ business models and the role of younger associates.

I’m sure it will mean fewer billable hours for us… right? Where did your unique background lead you to this past summer?

This summer, I interned for the Office of General Counsel at the U.S. Department of Defense. Through this internship, I had the opportunity to complete research assignments for current cases, sit in on depositions, and explore the Pentagon. I had an amazing group of fellow interns, and our internship program coordinators set up field trips for us around the DMV including to military bases in the area, the Supreme Court, and the White House. I would highly recommend this internship to all 1Ls interested in national security or government work, even if (like me) you intend to work at a firm after graduating.

What are you most excited about as you begin your second fall semester at the Law School?

I am excited to work with Professor Ware as an LRW fellow and hope to use this as an opportunity to get to know some of the 1Ls and provide them with feedback that will help them in the class and help them to build skills that they can take to their internships this summer. I am also looking forward this semester to taking classes with two professors I really enjoyed having as a 1L (shoutout to Professors Nachbar and Gulati). Outside of class, I am excited to play poker and softball.  

Oh wow, that’s two Ware fellows on Hot Bench in a row. Maybe I’ll go for a hat trick… Okay, lightning round! What’s your favorite season?

That’s a tough one, but I’m going to go with fall. The weather is nice enough to enjoy being outside (at least most days) and there is plenty of football and baseball to watch.

Agreed, fall is the best! Which of the hominids would you most like to have a beer with?

I would have a beer with someone whose upbringing in Baltimore has shaped her career and whose career in Congress has been one of the most consequential in history. That person is Nancy Pelosi.

Hm… I was looking for “the humble orangutan,” but that answer works, too. What’s your go-to for a quick, cheap meal?

I live in the Pavilion, so when I want to grab a quick meal with friends, Sedona is always a solid option.

Great beer selection—look out for the Smuttynose on your next visit. What’s at the top of your travel bucket list?

Earlier this summer, I traveled to Italy for the first time and absolutely loved it. I would love to get back to the Mediterranean and would have to say that Greece is at the top of my bucket list.


---
Interviewed by Andrew Allard ‘25

Hot Bench: Jon Griffith ’25

Hi Jon! Thanks for joining me for this year’s inaugural Hot Bench. For our readers that haven’t had the pleasure of meeting you yet, tell us where you’re from, where you went for undergrad, and why you came to law school?

Thanks for having me! I was born and raised in The Woodlands, Texas; it is a suburb north of Houston. My parents met in law school at the University of Texas at Austin, which means I was raised by two attorneys. But I didn’t immediately follow in my parents’ footsteps. First, I pursued petroleum engineering at UT followed by four years in the oil field. Within about two years of working as a petroleum engineer, I realized the path I was walking didn’t lead where I wanted it to go. The job I had at the time, and most jobs in the industry, did not challenge me to think critically or be creative; rather, I was confronted with copy-and-paste tasks and checklists that needed to be followed. My choice to pursue the law was a choice to pursue a challenge, and my time at UVA has left me with zero regrets.

That’s wonderful—hopefully we can keep you at zero regrets by the time the interview is over. I understand that you’re rather enthusiastic about legal practice in Texas and perhaps Texas in general… Why should UVA Law students pursue a career in Texas?

If you will allow a shameless plug, Lone Star Lawyers is an organization that answers this question at their event “Why Texas” on Thursday, August 29th at 7 p.m. (right after the Student Activity Fair) in Purcell Reading Room. We talk about all the pros of the Texas Market and how to land a 1L summer associateship.

Alright 1Ls, don’t miss it! On a related note, do you have any wisdom to impart on starting the 1L journey?

If you are facing a problem, attempt to solve it on your own, then take a moment to formulate a thorough question (sometimes this process answers the question), then ask someone for help. There are so many incredible people at this Law School (student affairs, OPP, student orgs) who love to help. There is no reason for anyone to struggle on their own. And you don’t have to confine yourself to the Law School. If you aren’t sure how to apply to a specific firm, find an alumnus at that firm and send them an email. They would love to help you.

Speaking of firm work, do you have any memorable experiences from this summer?

Absolutely. I experienced something that very few attorneys have seen in their entire career. While attending a court hearing, the court stenographer decided that she had had enough. She not only quit her job in the middle of the proceedings, but she yelled at the judge for not enunciating his words sufficiently. Then, when the attorney politely asked if she could take down the judge’s final orders for the record, because otherwise the entire proceeding was essentially a waste, she accused both attorneys and the judge of harassment. It was wild.

Wow, that is… certainly memorable! Are you taking any courses this semester that you’re particularly excited about?

I am very excited to work with Professor Ware as an LRW fellow. I remember how stressful writing a brief can be, and I hope I can make the process a little easier. I am also excited for “Taking Effective Depositions.” I enjoy classes that focus on real-world skills. After attending my first deposition over the summer, I look forward to seeing what went into preparing for that deposition.

Do you have any bucket list items you plan to check off now that you’re (hopefully) 3LOLing?

I have a fixed set of goals for this final year of academic opportunity to ensure that I am well positioned to succeed in my career. I want to visit more wineries, play more softball/poker/board games, enjoy the weather, and relax.

You sound very responsible! I wish I could relate. How would you describe your taste in music?

I would describe my taste in music as exceptional. Others would describe it as “the gayest thing about him.” Harsh, but pretty accurate—I am very excited about attending a Gracie Abrams concert this semester.

Do you have any tips for novice poker players on how to improve their game?

Watch a YouTube video explaining the basics and then sit next to someone better than you who will whisper sweet nothings advice as you play.

Hm… this sounds strangely familiar. OK, lightning round! Favorite Charlottesville restaurant?

Ivy Provisions. I love their sandwiches and coffee.

Great pick. Favorite Olympic sport?

The swim relays are always my favorite. The best Olympic event in our lifetimes was the “Beat the French” 4 x 100m freestyle relay at the 2008 Beijing Olympics.

If you could reboot any movie or TV series, what would it be?

The Goonies, without a doubt. As long as they stick with similar themes, I think it would be a hit.

I’d definitely watch it! Crocs—in or out?

Out. It’s either tennis shoes or boots for me.

Which cryptid would you be most excited to encounter in the wild?

The Loch Ness Monster springs to mind, if only because it means that I am in Scotland. I visited the country with my little brother the summer before 1L year and loved it.

Court of Petty Appeals: The Funding Cases

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.

The Great Debate: Summer Covid or No Summer Covid?

Point: Summer Covid sucks.

Ryan Moore ’25
Law Weekly Historian

In 1997, the Scottish director Jim Gillespie released the horror-slasher film I Know What You Did Last Summer. Starring Jennifer Love Hewitt, Sarah Michelle Gellar, and a young Johnny Galecki (of Big Bang Theory fame), a group of teens accidentally run over a pedestrian, leaving him for dead after dumping his body in the ocean.[1]

For many returning 3Ls who spent their summer at a firm, everyone knows what you did last summer: free lunches, free drinks, and maybe some legal “work.” For some KJDs, last summer was their first taste of “work” experience. For older, wiser law students, this summer was a much needed return to the workforce and a reminder of a happier time. But I do not want to hear about the legal issues you worked on, I do not want to hear about how many free lunches you had, and I definitely do not want to hear about how you “totally messed up in front of this partner” and thought you would get “no offered.”

I am not here to write about the summer associate experience. Instead, I take this opportunity to sympathize with the pedestrian in I Know What You Did Last Summer. Much like the pedestrian,[2] I also was abandoned.

While my classmates spent their post-summer job period traveling the world and lounging on the beach, I spent it sick with my third bout of Covid. I had to lie there, coughing and suffering on my couch, while all my friends posted Instagram photos of them living it up in Hawaii, Albania, Ireland, and even Florida. If I hear one more 3L’s story about how great their beach vacation was, I will seek an injunction through Law Weekly’s Court of Petty Appeals.

You have been warned.

 

Counterpoint: Boy did I have a great summer!

Andrew Allard ’25
Editor-in-Chief

Being a summer associate was a breeze. And what better city than New York to embrace brat summer? Not to mention the paychecks! While I refuse to identify myself as an older law student, I am certainly a wiser one. So, much like Ryan, I thoroughly enjoyed my brief return to the workforce—and my bank account’s even briefer return to a positive balance.

Early in the summer, I also got hit with Covid… and it was great! I worked from home for a couple days and hardly missed any of the big law wining and dining experience. Sure, I had a bad fever and headaches, but who doesn’t enjoy working from home in their PJs at market rate? Eventually, I healed up and returned to the office. I sure hope I didn’t spread Covid to anyone else… what are the CDC guidelines again?

Anyway, after recovering, my summer just kept getting better! I wrapped up my internship in New York and headed home to New Hampshire for a little beach vacation. There was swimming, fishing, grilling—I can’t remember another time I’ve felt so relaxed! The worst thing I can say is that I got a little sunburnt one afternoon. That healed up after a couple days, though.

Most amazing of all was the hot streak of perfect beach weather. I’d never seen anything like it. Sunny, warm, and the cooling mist of the ocean… It was as if August was calling for me to stay at the beach just… one… more… day…

Man, I sure am glad I got Covid out of the way early on in the summer. It would have been a real bummer to suffer indoors and miss out on all that summer fun!





[1] Remember this because it becomes relevant later.

[2] Spoiler alert: he lives!

The Definitive Law Weekly Restaurant List

Ashanti Jones ’26, Features Editor
Nicky Demitry ’26, Production Editor

Welcome back 2Ls and 3Ls, and welcome home 1Ls! As everyone settles in (or back) to life in Charlottesville, the staff here at Virginia Law Weekly wanted to provide the community with some vital information to start the year off right: where to get good food. The places that appear on this list are sourced from your fellow law students, and include spots for lunch, dinner, before Bar Review, after Bar Review, and everything else in between.

Lampo
Location: 205 Monticello Road
Price: $-$$
Go for: solid, affordable Italian spot, but most importantly the pizza

Source: Lampo Neapolitan Pizzeria

Ace Biscuit and Barbecue
Location: 600 Concord Ave
Price: $$
Go for: of course the barbecue, but the chicken and waffles is a huge fan favorite

Farm Bell Kitchen
Location: 1209 West Main Street
Price: $$
Go for: really tasty brunch, banger cocktails too

Tavola
Location: 826 Hinton Avenue
Price: $$
Go for: another Italian spot, pricier than Lampo but amazing pasta options

Vu Noodles
Location: 111 East Water
Price: $-$$
Go for: great Vietnamese food with vegan and veggie options

Alley Light
Location: 108 2nd Street SW
Price: $$
Go for: sharable French small plates, and super cute cocktails made by one of our very own editors, Nicky <3

Revolutionary Soup
Location: 108 2nd Street SW
Price: $-$$
Go for: obviously the soups, but also quality salads and grain bowls

Monsoon Siam
Location: 113 W Market Street
Price: $-$$
Go for: Thai if eating in

Thai Cuisine and Noodle House
Location: 2005 Commonwealth Drive
Price: $-$$
Go for: Thai if taking to go

Mas
Location: 904 Monticello Road
Price: $$
Go for: tapas and top notch sangria

Ten Sushi
Location: 120 East Main Street
Price: $-$$
Go for: good sushi but an even better atmosphere

Jack Brown
Location: 109 2nd Street SE
Price: $-$$
Go for: really great smash burgers

Splendoras Gelato
Location: 2050 Bond Street
Go for: great gelato (duh), but also great vegan cupcakes (only available on Friday and Saturday though)

Source: Guajiros

Guajiros
Location: 114 10th Street NW
Go for: really tasty Cuban food, plus a fun “after dark” menu

The Local
Location: 824 Hinton Avenue
Price: $-$$
Go for: very diverse menu, great option for an “I’m up for anything” kinda night

Court of Petty Appeals: Blinded Law Students v. Board of Visitors of the University of Virginia

Blinded Law Students 
v. 
Board of Visitors of the University of Virginia 
76 U.Va 22 (2024) 


Coleman, J., delivers the opinion of the Court.

While the Sun turned partially black on April 8th, its deadly photons still collided with the eyes of unsuspecting law students. They come before this Court asking for fair compensation. But the University makes two claims to avoid liability for injuries sustained on Grounds and made possible by the sun-exposed area that is Spies Garden. First, Virginia tort law should apply to this action. Second, the students were contributorily negligent by looking at the Sun without protective glasses. We reject both arguments and reinstate the plaintiffs’ complaint. From now on, the Court of Petty Appeals follows a form of Better Law Theory with total disregard as to what the Commonwealth of Virginia does.
On the Day of Black Sun, students eagerly amassed in Spies Garden. The school encouraged this congregation by letting out some classes early, holding others outside, and even canceling a few. Initially, a pesky cloud covered the astronomical spectacle, but eventually gave way to reveal a Sun whose area was approximately 70% covered. While some students marveled at the celestial bodies, others felt the wrath of Apollo—without eclipse glasses, they were permanently blinded. The students come from across the nation and have a variety of domiciles.

Three forces made this tragedy possible. First, students were let out of class. Second, the Student Affairs office ran out of eclipse glasses early in the day. And third, the University has ignored the grave hazard that is Spies Garden.

II

The just cause of these plaintiffs is inhibited by two realities. First, Virginia tort law is a creature of some Victorian nightmare—contributory negligence is still a total defense to tort liability. Worse yet, the Commonwealth follows the First Restatement of Conflict of Laws! Second, and relatedly, Klaxon requires that federal courts follow the conflicts law of the state in which they sit.[1] We address both of these issues in one fell swoop.

III

This Court will not follow Klaxon and will only apply its own version of the Better Law Theory. Klaxon was decided on Erie-type concerns, but these are not issues for us. We have no concurrent jurisdiction with anyone. Parties are forcibly brought before this Court through our fictional setups. This means that there is no risk of unfairness to litigants based on the happenstance of diversity. Rather, we strive for universal unfairness.

IV

Refusing to follow Klaxon is only the first step. Now, we must formulate our conflict of laws doctrine. We choose as a foundation the much-maligned Better Law Theory, but simplify it to only include the final factor: application of the “better rule of law.”[2] So, whenever we are confronted with a potential choice of law problem, we will consider which substantive law yields the better—or funnier—outcome. While some may decry this as arbitrary, this is absolutely the outcome most consistent with our precedent. See Gay Section H Law Weekly Staff v. Lake, 75 U. Va. 16 (2023) (overruled on other grounds) (Lake, C.J., concurring) (“There is nothing more vital to the exercise of justice than committing to the bit.”); see also Pet. R. Civ. Pro. 1 (“We do what we want.”).

Applying that theory to this case, we choose to not apply Virginia tort law. It would be both better and funnier if the school were held liable for exposing students to the Sun’s deadly rays. But rather than apply another state’s law based on the domiciles of the plaintiffs, this Justice feels empowered to create and apply his own Uniform Eclipse Law. The UEL will hold landowners negligent and liable for treble damages if they fail to provide invitees with eclipse glasses and also encourage them to go into open spaces.[3]

 We reverse and remand for a consideration of the compensatory damages. When calculating lost wages, the lower court must assume that all who are blinded were going to make partner at their Big Law firms and not retire until age seventy-five.

Allen, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.

 I do not foundationally contest the legitimacy of this Court’s decision to craft its own tort law in response to the unique circumstances of the case at hand—my disagreement stems from their scant consideration of just how this new framework should operate.  I would depart from my brethren and sistren on the bench in directing the lower court to find either that contributory negligence precludes recovery for the plaintiffs at bar or comparative negligence would require any damage award be severely curtailed. While law students are not the smartest bunch, even they must understand the risk and consequences of staring at the sun unaided by protective equipment. Though law students can (and do) trace any inconvenience or injury they suffer to the University administration in some way, these students are at least partially at fault, and should be limited in their recovery as a result.  

Sandu, J., concurring in the judgment.

While I concur with the ultimate decision of this Court, I write separately to emphasize the role that the clouds present that day played in affecting law student decision-making.   Although the day began as a partly-cloudy—even sunny—one, by 3:20 pm, the sky was nearly entirely covered in a thin blanket of clouds, nearly entirely obscuring the eclipsing Sun from view. It was in this context that many law students, searching for a glimpse of a rare celestial phenomenon, chose to look directly at the Sun.  Thus, I would argue that even if Virginia tort law were to apply, students should not be found contributorily negligent for injuries sustained during their reasonable reliance on the protection of clouds. If anything, I believe plaintiffs have a good case for promissory estoppel against Zeus and the Water Cycle for causing reasonable reliance on the promise of cloudy weather to the students’ detriment.

Allard, C.J., dissenting.

My brother, Justice Coleman, has once again written a sound opinion and proven himself an able jurist. And yet, I cannot bring myself to join it for one simple yet crucial principle: I am a grumpy and overbearing bastard of a boss. Justice Coleman most-correctly applied this Court’s bit-commitment legal philosophy to the novel conflict of laws issue in this case, and for that, another jurist might commend him. But when I read the majority opinion I saw one thing and one thing only—an attempt to combine his actual legal studies with his writing for this Court. In response to this abhorrent behavior,[4] I must dissent.

 For too long, justices of this Court have grown too comfortable incorporating real law into their opinions.[5] In doing so, they forget this Court’s most fundamental principle: We do what we want.[6] Whatever happened to the good old days of squishy, incomprehensible, and unpredictable doctrines, like substantive honor or original public meaning?[7] If we are to uphold our duty as the decider of all the Law School’s pettiest disputes, then we must take great care not to make the law too comprehensible. Litigants before this Court cannot be led to believe that our decisions are well-reasoned, lest they become satisfied with the outcome, leading the wells of pettiness to quickly run dry.

For that reason, I would adopt Justice Coleman’s same Better Law Theory—but on entirely different grounds which I refuse to disclose—and then maybe rule in favor of the Law School anyway just to shake things up a little. We are ungovernable. Amen.


---

[1] Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487 (1941).

[2] Robert A. Leflar, Conflicts Law: More on Choice-Influencing Considerations, 54 Cal. L. Rev. 1584 (1966). I also thank Professor Collins, though I do so hesitatingly because I don’t want him to reconsider my Conflicts grade after reading this.

[3] To respond to my Brother Allen, this Justice overheard a successful law student express confusion over whether the Sun was in between Earth and Moon or vice versa. This is indicative of the astronomical knowledge of law students. So, we cannot say that it was obvious for the reasonable law student to not look directly at the Sun.

[4] In which I have never dared to engage.

[5] See, e.g., Estate of Big Gobble the Turkey v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 76 U.Va 11 (2023) (talking about things like “the Eighth Amendment,” whatever the hell that is).

[6] Petty Rules of Civil Procedure 1. Is it hypocritical to complain about citing real law and then refer to our FRCP-inspired procedural rules? No. See Rule 1.

[7] Wait shit, one of those is real.

Court of Petty Appeals: Law Weekly Editors v. Andrew Allard, in his capacity as Editor-in-Chief 76 U.Va 21 (2024)

Law Weekly Editors 
v. 
Andrew Allard, in his capacity as Editor-in-Chief 

76 U.Va 21 (2024) 


Per curiam.


Several cases against Chief Justice Allard have been consolidated on this appeal. He stands accused of embezzling from the Law Weekly coffers, both to enrich himself and pay off a porn star, abusing his staff in meetings, and inciting a mob to hang Executive Editor Coleman. All of this was done while Allard was Editor-in-Chief, sovereign of the Law Weekly. This suit was initiated by the staff of the Law Weekly to recover monetary damages against Allard.

The group of editors contends that Article II, Section 1 of the Law Weekly Constitution allows editors to sue the Editor-in-Chief for breach of their official duties and other mismanagement. The editors rely on this Court’s precedent, in which we have asserted our authority to rein in unruly EICs. See e.g., Ex parte Law Weekly, 76 U.Va 16 (2024).

Just last term, this Court addressed the core issue in this case—the ability of disgruntled editors to sue the Editor-in-Chief. See Gay Section H Law Weekly Staff v. Lake, 75 U.Va 16 (granting a Law School-wide injunction against confusing two editors because of the then-Editor-in-Chief’s mistake). In the months since, this Court has favorably cited that opinion no less than four times. See Students for Attending Cool Events v. UVA Law Faculty, 76 U.Va 13 (2024); Ex parte Law Weekly, 76 U.Va 16 (2024); Virginia v. Harvard Law Review Ass’n, 76 U.Va 6 (2023); Allard v. Editorial Board of the Virginia Law Weekly, 76 U.Va 12 (2023). Evidently, it is an important and well-regarded case.

But something more important has happened since Gay Section H Law Weekly Staff was decided: This Court’s composition has changed. The new Editor-in-Chief is also the new Chief Justice. And frankly, he doesn’t want to get sued by his underlings. We thus hold what any rational judge would hold. Gay Section H Law Weekly Staff was egregiously wrong on the day it was decided. It must be overturned. We now hold that the Editor-in-Chief, as sovereign of the Law Weekly, enjoys editorial immunity from suit. See Allard v. Editorial Board, 76 U.Va 12 (2023) (“Our sovereign, Chief Justice of this Court and Editor-in-Chief of our paper, lays original claim to all news, future and past.”) (Coleman, J., concurring). The cases brought against Mr. Allard are accordingly dismissed.

 

Allard, C.J., concurring.

I agree wholeheartedly with the Court, but I write separately to address questions left unanswered in its opinion, as I believe our precedent should not be overturned lightly. Firstly, the Court’s decision today is a narrow one. Our constitution has long emanated editorial immunity vibes. Indeed, the existence of editorial immunity has previously been recognized by Law Weekly editors. See Petrina Thomas, Hot Bench: Phil Tonseth ’22, Virginia Law Weekly (Feb. 23, 2022); Nikolai Morse, Hot Bench: Dana Lake ’23, Deposed Tyrant, Virginia Law Weekly (Mar. 15, 2023). And as we made clear in the Slaughter Hall Cases, Law Weekly articles that have nothing to do with the Court of Petty Appeals can still be cited as binding authority. Thus, in issuing today’s opinion, the Court has merely clarified existing law.

Further, our opinion does not disturb the central holding of Gay Section H Law Weekly Staff, namely, that Ethan Brown ’25 and Andrew Allard ’25 are distinct entities. Nothing in the per curiam opinion can rightly be characterized as overturning that core conclusion. Nor does our opinion do anything to affect the concurrence’s foundational observation that “There is nothing more vital to the exercise of justice than committing to the bit.” Gay Section H Law Weekly Staff, 75 U.Va 16 (Lake, C.J., concurring). This opinion thus does not threaten or cast doubt on the canon of uncomical avoidance.

Lastly, some may interpret today’s decision as an effort by the Chief Justice to immunize himself from future litigation and entrench his position as the paper’s Editor-in-Chief. This is essentially correct. But who is going to stop me? You?

 

Coleman, J., concurring.

         Why did Caesar cross the Rubicon? Contrary to popular belief, it had nothing to do with a lust for dictatorial power. The Senators back in Rome demanded that he relinquish his control over Gaul and return to the capital fully exposed to vexatious litigation–a Hobson’s choice if ever there was one. Before humanity had a robust concept of executive immunity, transitions of power were fodder for civil war.

         This lesson was lost on our Court when Section H Gays was decided. But now, I will rest easy knowing that Dana Lake ’23, Nikolai Morse ’24, or Andrew Allard ’25 will never storm this office with legions at their backs. This Court comes to the appropriate conclusion that their war crimes should never result in crushing civil liability.

 

Allen, J., dissenting in part and concurring in the judgment

         The issue at hand is both complex and arcane, implicating some of the most basic tenets of our constitutional order. Because the Editor-in-Chief of the Law Weekly is undoubtedly a state actor by virtue of their immense power at this public institution, it must be considered whether they are properly shielded against this suit by sovereign immunity, and if not to what extent relief may flow to Petitioners.

         Because the suit is not merely a pretext for a suit of the state itself, it is not automatically barred. However, to the extent Petitioners seek damages which would ultimately come from the coffers of the Commonwealth, I agree their suit is properly barred, as Ex Parte Young and its progeny make clear[1] that such suits may only seek prospective and equitable relief in the form of injunctions rather than any retrospective monetary damages.

         I believe this Court unnecessarily reads Section H Gays as broadly as possible, going out of its way to overrule it. That case gave little analysis to the sovereign immunity questions at play, likely due to the author having just taken the bench. While the reading entertained by the Court today is not impossible, it is strained and unneeded—a pretense to agglomerate power in the hands of the Editor-in-Chief-Justice. Thus, I would retain Section H Gays’ operative holding, retaining the possibility of injunctive relief against an Editor-in-Chief, while clarifying that the sweeping language of Section H Gays should not be read as supporting relief in the form of damages.

 

Sandu, J., dissenting

         The majority’s decision today directly undermines the very foundation of this Court. The ability to sue Editors-in-Chief is an inalienable right of the Law Weekly and the broader Law School community. It has always existed within this Court, for it is inconceivable that the drafters of the Law Weekly Constitution did not envision themselves being potential parties in a Court designed to resolve disputes within the Law School.

First, Petty Rule of Civil Procedure 1 states clearly that “We do what we want.” The Court’s present holding therefore impermissibly constrains the Court’s jurisdiction and prevents it from doing what it wants if it wants to sue the Editor-in-Chief. While my colleagues may argue that “do[ing] what we want'' includes overturning any rules which this Court has promulgated, a far better approach would be the arbitrary and capricious denial of suit on a case-by-case basis, depending on the will of the Court. The categorical rule promulgated in this case is far too broad.

Furthermore, members of this Court are permitted to rule on cases in which they themselves are parties. As a result,  Editors-in-Chief who disagree with the suit being brought against them have every opportunity to convince the majority to rule in their own favor; they may even write the majority opinion. Therefore, cases where the Editor-in-Chief failed to avail themselves of such opportunities may be construed to have consented to this Court’s jurisdiction, making the problem of sovereign immunity a moot one. Again, if the Court truly can do whatever they want, then the Chief Justice may dismiss cases against them at will – but it must depend on what would be the funniest outcome for the individual case before the Court.

Most egregiously, however, the majority’s holding directly violates this Court’s Commitment to the Bit, as codified in PRCP 3. How can this Court ever hope to decide the funniest outcome possible in each case before it if all cases involving the Editor-in-Chief, of which there are many, are entirely barred? If anything, it is often far funnier for the Editor-in-Chief to lose in a Court where they themselves are the Chief Justice. The present Court has chosen a myopic approach to comedy, humorously overturning fundamental precedent for a single case rather than considering the impact it will have on future litigants. We are cutting off our nose to spite our face.

For the above reasons, and to make known the opinions of the outgoing 3L members of this Court, I must respectfully dissent.

 

Morse, C.J. Emeritus, dissenting.

         The consequences of today’s decision are as astonishing as its reasoning is dull. As my colleague J. Sandu correctly points out, the so-called “majority” opinion conveniently ignores our precedent, the Law Weekly Constitution, and most damning of all, the Petty Rules of Civil Procedure. I write separately, however, to criticize the majority’s use of the term, “sovereign.”

         Chief Justice Allard, clearly having attended at least one Constitutional Law class (or, more likely, having at least one friend who has granted him access to their Quimbee subscription) flings what he seems to believe is quite the gauntlet: he claims that he is the “sovereign” of Law Weekly, and therefore entitled to “editorial immunity.” At this point, dear reader, please join me in a facepalm. Literally do that. Smack your open palm against your forehead with medium force. Maybe twice. Feeling a little better? Me neither.

         It seems to me there are two possibilities. First, the Chief Justice might actually understand what a “sovereign” is, and intends to subvert both the Law Weekly Constitution, doing away with popular sovereignty which is the foundation of  American democratic constitutionalism. Under this reading, the Chief Justice seems to be anointing himself as some sort of monarch. But given his lack of arms or resources (surely a monarch should be able to afford to print a newspaper each week), this seems unlikely.

         The second, and more likely reading of the “majority” opinion, is that the Chief Justice heard someone use the word “sovereign” in passing, and thought to throw it in as simply another ingredient in his “everything but the kitchen sink” approach to judging. So, let’s help the Chief out. A sovereign is not a job title, like lifeguard, proctologist, or Editor-in-Chief. Rather, it is the entity which possesses “supreme political authority; paramount control of the constitution and frame of government and Its administration ; the self-sufficient source of political power, from which all specific political powers are derived.”[2] While there is a colorable argument that the Law Weekly is a sovereign, the Chief can no more lay claim to sovereign status than can Darden students can credibly claim to have worked hard and learned a lot.

         I dissent.


---

[1] Maybe? — IDK, I haven’t taken FedCourts.

[2] Black’s Law Dictionary, 2d Ed., accessed at https://thelawdictionary.org/sovereignty/.  See Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 455, 1 L. Ed. 440.

Hot Bench: Julia D’Rozario ‘24

Welcome to the Hot Bench, Julia! And thank you for participating in our 3L Hot Bench send-offs. Let’s just get started with you telling us about what you were up to before law school and what brought you to UVA Law?

Between undergrad and law school, I was back in my hometown, Hong Kong, for two years. I was working at a local charity serving children without families and young pregnant girls. It was a life-changing experience, and I make sure to visit and volunteer whenever I’m back home.

My journey to law school was less intentional than most—I was a philosophy major as an undergrad at UCLA, and I quite literally looked up “what do philosophy majors do for a job.” Google spat out “law school,” and I just kind of took that and went with it. I definitely don’t recommend making big life decisions that carelessly . . . but it did ultimately work out, because I ended up loving it.

It seems like you were doing such impactful work, so how did you come to join a publication of such austere yet dubious character?

I decided to join after I stumbled on the Law Weekly table at the activities fair during my 1L year. I went up to the table just because they were handing out popsicles. But I found that I liked everyone I met, and it made me want to join!

As the Law Weekly’s New Media Editor, have you seen any good “new media” lately that you would recommend to our readership?

Frieren is changing my life, it’s so good. It’s newish—the first season just finished airing last month. I’m also very much looking forward to the new season of Demon Slayer (which starts airing May 12, and which threatens grave harm to my Bar prep.)

What is your favorite place to visit in Charlottesville?

I love Charlottesville so much, it’s almost impossible for me to choose. I love the Downtown Mall—my perfect day involves tea at the Twisted Branch, followed by lunch at Botanical Fare and an afternoon of wandering into all the little shops. Another favorite is the Farmers Market at IX early morning on Saturdays. I also really enjoy just driving around the mountains and back roads – the scenery is so beautiful and always changing from season to season. And most of the year there are horses, cows, deer and other animals everywhere.

What about the most overrated part of Charlottesville?

Monticello is very cool, but there are so many other things to do in Charlottesville that are just as cool and which don’t get nearly as much hype.

I am sure Thomas Jefferson is weeping from the grave. What was your favorite class taken during law school?

I took (and loved) every class Professor Krawiec offers. Repugnant Transactions was my favorite; it had the same energy as some of my undergrad moral philosophy classes. It’s also a class that has really stuck with me—I find myself thinking “what would Professor Krawiec think about this?” super often.

I also recommend Law and Literature with Professor Annie Kim to everyone. That class completely changed the way I read and write, and I truly think I’ll be a better lawyer for having taken it. Professor Kim is a fantastic educator.

What is your favorite law school memory?

There aren’t many places as beautiful as Charlottesville, with such close access to mountains, rivers, campgrounds, waterfalls . . . and I’m moving to New York City after graduation, so my memories in nature will be particularly dear to me. I went on a camping trip with some friends last fall, which is an experience I’ll cherish forever. I’ll also miss the weekly fall visits to Carter Mountain, and all the amazing vineyards nearby.

What brings you the most joy?

Nothing fancy—I get a lot of joy from small things. I really enjoy my day-to-day life. I like waking up early and meditating; collecting and drinking good tea; cooking and trying new recipes; eating dinner with friends; going for walks; drawing and crocheting. I make sure to do each of these things every week. I think it goes a long way toward keeping me sane and balanced in school (and hopefully will when I’m working, too).

 

Okay, it’s time for our lightning round! What is one class you would have taken if UVA offered it?

I would have loved to take a class on the Philosophy of Law.

Summer or winter Olympics?

Summer! I only really watch diving and gymnastics.

Any ideas for a novel fundraising campaign to cover the Law Weekly’s printing costs next year?

We should start auctioning off our leftover pizza on Tuesday mornings.

What career would you be doing if not law?

I’d like to think I’d be running a board game cafe or something similarly fun. I’ve also always thought it would be fun to illustrate a children’s book or be a postcard designer (is postcard designer a job that exists?)

Favorite painting in the Law School?

The cows!

Alternatives to run against Biden and Trump?

Denise, from the Harris Teeter bar. I seriously love her. The proof is in the photos—if you ever find yourself at the Teeter bar, count how many pictures of me are on the door. Jon Greenstein ’24, Tristan Deering ’24, and I also make up the entire month of September on the Harris Teeter calendar. Yes, really.


---
Interviewed by Noah Coco '26 

Court of Petty Appeals: Petty Rules of Civil Procedure Revised Ed. (2024)

Petty Rules of Civil Procedure 
Revised Ed. (2024) 


A practitioner recently brought to the Court’s attention that, while we have in previous decisions referenced our procedural rules, the Court has not published them in full. Because we are a wise and benevolent Court, we now publish the revised and annotated Petty Rules of Civil Procedure for the reference of all would-be petty litigants.

 

Rule 1. Fairness

We do what we want.

Comment: Some practitioners have asked: "Why write a comprehensive set of procedural rules if the first rule is that the Court does what it wants?" We encourage them to see Rule 1.

 

Rule 2. 1Ls

1Ls always lose unless it is funnier for them to win.

Comment: For the purposes of Rule 2, and the Petty Rules of Civil Procedure in General,  LL.M.s are not considered part of the 1L class unless the complaint is one related to the first year at the Law School.

 

Rule 3. The Bit

(a) Our commitment is to the Bit. Therefore:

(1) The funniest outcome must necessarily prevail.

(2) In cases where both outcomes are equally funny, the most absurd outcome shall prevail.

 

Rule 4. There is one form of action—the Petty Action.

(a) A Petty Action is commenced by filing a petty complaint with the Court.

(b) Constructive Pettiness. Where the context in which a case arises is petty, that pettiness may be construed to apply to the entire case, even if the underlying issue would not otherwise fall into this Court’s pettiness jurisdiction.

 

Rule 5. General Rules of Pleading

(a) Claim for Butting In. A pleading that asks the Court to settle a petty dispute must contain:

(1) an angry or insane rambling that gets across the gist of the problem;

(2) at least a couple of sentences that look something like law; and

(3) the relief sought and “pretty please” or something to that effect.

(b) Defenses.

(1) A party may file a response to a petty pleading, but we’ll probably ignore it unless it includes:

(A) money;

(B) an even pettier counterclaim;

(C) juicy gossip; or

(D) surprisingly accurate adherence to the Court’s precedent.

 Comment: These General Rules remain subject to Rule 1, as the Court may take on any case it wishes.

 

Rule 6. Objecting to a Ruling or Order

(a) Decisions of this Court can be appealed only to God. Good luck.

(b) If someone’s gonna bitch about the Court, we want to hear it directly. Submit it. We dare you.

Comment: Given this Court’s previous suits against the Almighty, this Court has not yet ruled on whether Divine decisions which are not directly remanded back to the Court may be appealed.

 

Rule 7. Pretrial Conferences

If the parties wish to duke it out among themselves before the Court issues its opinion, we’re cool with that. Fair warning—we will probably use this as an opportunity to make fun of you in the opinion.

Comment: Pretrial conferences between parties have no preclusive effect on this Court, subject to Rules 1 and 3. The Court reserves the right to rule on any case which passes its doors, even those which have ostensibly settled their differences prior to the ruling. Mootness only applies subject to Rule 3, if it is funnier for it to do so.

 

Rule 8. Intervention

We love a good pile-on, so anyone is welcome to intervene, as long as they’re angry at one of the parties. The more, the pettier.

 

Rule 10. Summary Judgment

(a) Parties are encouraged to move for summary judgment at any point in the litigation process. We’d like to get on with it. A motion for summary judgment must be accompanied by:

(1) insult(s) directed at the opposing party;

(2) in the movant’s view, a description of the funniest outcome of the case; and

(3) some light reading for our entertainment.

 

Rule 11. Formatting

(a) All documents must be submitted in Jokerman font.

(b) Don’t underline things. Just stop. Use italics.

(c) If you do not use Oxford commas, we will rule against you faster than a death row inmate before Sam Alito.

(d) Fix hanging words. We will not read them.

 

Rule 12. Defenses and Objections

(a) Defendants are encouraged to delay filing their answer until the date that will most piss off the opposing party. But note that we might just decide to go ahead with the case without your response.

(b) Every defense to a claim for butting in must be shouted from the Law School rooftops (or emailed to the Court). But a party may assert the following defenses by motion:

(1) lack of petty jurisdiction;

(2) typo in complaint, idiot!;

(3) really just not interested in this rn;

(4) male living space venue;

(5) failure to state a petty claim; and

(6) unqualified filer (1L, resident of Massachusetts, etc.)

Comment: We arguably have personal jurisdiction over everyone. Because all humans have deliberately availed themselves of pettiness at one point or another.

 

Rule 13. Amended and Supplemental Pleadings

(a) A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within:

(1) 21 days after serving it, or

(2) 22 days after serving, if during a leap year.

(b) In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only after begging on their hands and knees.

(c) On second thought, ignore all of the above. For the love of God, don’t bother. Whatever you filed in the first instance, we likely barely read it.

 

Rule 14. Applicability of the Rules

(a) If you’re rude, the Court may favor the opposing party in interpreting and applying these Rules.

(b) On the other hand, we’re not above a little bribery. Note: The Chief Justice loves a good croissant.

 

Rule 15. Recusals

Justices are not precluded from presiding over a case that involves any conflict of interest, up to and including decisions affecting the Justices themselves.

Comment: We modeled this one on the U.S. Supreme Court, and it’s been working pretty well for us.

 

Rule 16. Interpleader

Oh God, not this shit.

Comment: You cannot make me go back into my CivPro notes and read about this.

 

Rule 17. Help.

(a)          All procedure and no substance makes the Court write dull opinions.

(b)          All procedure and no substance makes the Court write dull opinions.

(c)          All procedure and no substance makes the Court write dull opinions.

(d)         All procedure and no substance makes the Court write dull opinions.

 

Rule 18. Justices shouldn't be assholes.

Comment: This rule is subject to the limitations of Rule 1.

 

Rule 19. Any rules not listed in this collection yet subsequently referenced by the Court are valid and within this Court’s discretion, so long as they do not conflict with an written rule absent clear and convincing language that the Court intends to overturn a previously established rule.


---

Hot Bench: Darius Adel '24

Darius, welcome to the Hot Bench! As a 3L and veteran of the Law Weekly, I know our audience would love to hear about your story. First off, where are you from, and where did you go to undergrad?

Sure thing! I’m from the California Bay Area, and I went to UC Berkeley for undergrad.

 

What brought you to law school, and specifically UVA?

So I worked at a small ed-tech company right after college to get some practical skills. It was fun working with web apps stuff, but I always had my eye on transitioning into the legal industry. Eventually, I got a job in the legal department of this streaming company which eventually morphed into Paramount+, and it was a cool intersection between the software work I had been doing and the legal work I wanted to do. After a few months there, I found transactional work really interesting and was set on going to law school.

As for UVA, I wanted to branch out a little bit, and Charlottesville seemed like a really cute place to live for a few years. Also, Admissions put out that $$$ if you know what I mean…

 

That’s an awesome bit of unique experience! What will you be up to after graduation?

I’ll be doing transactional work for tech and life science companies at a firm in New York.

 

As graduation approaches, do you have advice for the younger law students on how to have the best experience here?

Go to office hours. Your professor decides your grades, and they are literally setting aside time for you to ask them about the material that will be on the test. I know it may be intimidating to talk to your professor one-on-one but that time with them is so valuable.

On that same note, get out of your comfort zone. This is a time for you to grow.

 

What has been your favorite extracurricular outside of the Law Weekly?

Probably revitalizing NLG’s legal observer program with my homie John Henry. It’s been so fulfilling to help the people I admire most in this world. I think developing some type of legal aid skill is so important, especially for people going into private practice like me.

 

Are there any professors who you feel have been particularly impactful for you?

Definitely Kordana, RIP… just kidding. I hope he’s doing well. Best Corporate Law professor in my opinion. He taught me to think through legal problems creatively.

 

Could you tell us about your clinic (legal aid) experience?

I did the Nonprofit Clinic. It was super nice to help out local community orgs, and the workload was much lighter than most of the other clinics.

 

Lighting Round! Favorite restaurant around Charlottesville (Besides Dominos, the glorious sponsor of this paper)?

That’s tough; I don’t usually go out to eat. Does ice cream count as a meal? La Flor Michoacana on Cherry Ave is SSS tier.

 

Favorite activity/hobby when you have a few hours of free time?

I love to tend my garden. I used to be a “only grow what you can eat” dork, but now I’m trying to expand my horizons a little bit. Maybe add in a couple of pollinator friendly flowers to the mix? Hmmm.

 

Favorite class?

Repugnant Transactions with Professor Kraweic. I know it’s a hot take, but I love everything about that class.

 

Best article you have written for the Law Weekly?

That’s tough. My best article was probably my stop the steal article with former President  Juhi Desai ’23. That one actually made me have a giggle fit while I was writing it.

 

Most tyrannical EIC you have seen at the Law Weekly?

Dana.

 

Backup career in case this whole law thing doesn’t work out?

There’s no backup plan. I think my calling to be a lawyer originates from a divine mandate like that of the philosopher kings of old.

 

What unorthodox pet would you have?

Probably a dire wolf. It’s gotta be large enough that I can ride on top of it like some shaman warrior. Maybe that’s actually my backup plan . . . .


---
Interviewed by Jordan Allen '25  

The Triumph of hANGry Editors

ANG '?? 
Law School Cryptid 


“How cold-hearted could you be, ANG?” you may ask. Very. But listen to ANG and learn. Each year, the fall breeze carries in a new class of 1Ls. Like clockwork, those green rascals find the audacity to begin robbing upperclassmen of precious Law School meals. They gorge themselves on Friday cookies, FedSoc Chick-fil-A, and Student Affairs snacks—all ANG’s food! It seems that each year’s class of 1Ls is hungrier than the last. Don’t they know that ANG was here long before them and that ANG will be here long after they’re gone? Admitted Students Day is the best day for ANG to seek vengeance.

Stealing the 0Ls’ food is a vengeance so sweet that, contrary to popular belief, it can be enjoyed at any temperature. And, oh! do the temperatures vary. Piping hot coffee—the real stuff, not the sludge from the library. A warm, toasted sandwich from Ivy Provisions—a feast for a starving law student who has naught but a bag of goldfish to snack on. And iced tea! A soothing refreshment in the heat of Charlottesville’s infamous false summer. Now, reader, do you understand ANG’s frustration? When did the Law School last give you iced tea?

This year’s admitted students were also treated to a dinner at Three Notch’d Brewery. Donning an admitted student lanyard, ANG managed to sneak in and fill up on chicken wings and beer. To make sure ANG’s disguise was convincing, ANG kept talking about how excited ANG was to attend such a collegial law school. Nobody suspected a thing. If you’ve ever eaten stolen food, you know that it tastes much, much better. But it’s more than that. For ANG, this is a zero-sum game. Every bite ANG takes is one less bite for the 0Ls. Ha.

As ANG lounged in a corner of Three Notch'd, ANG couldn’t help but marvel at the audacity of ANG’s own actions. Each chicken wing devoured felt like a small victory in the war against the insatiable hunger of the incoming 1Ls. But ANG's culinary conquest extended beyond mere sustenance—it was a statement, a manifesto of gastronomic justice.

But amidst the revelry and the stolen bites of barbecue, ANG couldn’t shake the nagging feeling of guilt that tugged at the corners of ANG’s conscience. Was ANG truly justified in this culinary crusade, or was ANG merely succumbing to the baser instincts of a law student’s ravenous appetite? It was a question that lingered in the air, like the scent of pulled pork wafting from the kitchen. Was ANG really any better for doing to the 0Ls the very same thing for which ANG resented them?

Just kidding. Of course ANG is better. The 0Ls don’t even know what a tort is. Okay, neither does ANG, but that’s neither here nor there. ANG earned this stolen meal through cunning and years of toil and sacrifice. For ANG, countless hours of lectures and exams may not have led to a law degree (yet), but it has always led ANG to this delicious annual tradition.

And so, as the night drew to a close and the last crumbs of stolen nachos vanished from ANG's plate, ANG couldn’t help but feel a sense of satisfaction. Much like the changing of the seasons, the sunrise, or the yearly preventable softball injury, the eventual arrival of new 1Ls was inevitable. But so, too, was ANG’s open house feast.

As ANG slipped out to return to the Copeley bleachers, ANG’s pockets heavy with purloined snacks and ANG’s heart aflutter with the joy of a well-executed caper, ANG couldn’t help but laugh. For in the annals of UVA Law lore, ANG would forever be remembered as the hungry gremlin who fought bravely for the honor (and stomachs) of Virginia lawyers. And for ANG, that was victory enough.

Court of Petty Appeals: Production Editors of the Virginia Law Weekly v. The Patriarchy® 76 U.Va 18 (2024)

Production Editors of the Virginia Law Weekly 
v. 
The Patriarchy® 

76 U.Va 18 (2024) 


Sandu, J., delivers the opinion of the court.

The position of Production Editor of the Law Weekly is a noble one. It is also a post that has historically (four times in a row now) been held by a woman–a woman who is often one of, if not the only, woman on the Law Weekly Executive Board. The case presently before the Court arises within this all-important framework.

Petitioners Monica Sandu ’24 and Nicky Demitry ’26 are the Production Editor Emerita and Current Production Editor of the Law Weekly, respectively (hereinafter “Production Editors”). Respondent, The Patriarchy®, is defined by Merriam-Webster as “a society or institution organized according to the principles or practices of patriarchy,” i.e., “control by men of a disproportionately large share of power.”[1] Petitioners brought suit in the District Court of Petty Claims alleging that The Patriarchy® has unduly corrupted the journalistic integrity of the Law Weekly, resulting in the discriminatory assignment of articles and a failure to adequately recognize their role within the paper. Respondent moved to dismiss the suit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

The District Court granted Respondent’s motion, reasoning that The Patriarchy® is not in fact a petty claim but rather a systemic problem, therefore placing it beyond the jurisdiction of this Court. The District Court also reasoned that it would be funnier for The Patriarchy® to prevail against Petitioners during Women’s History Month. Because the District Court failed to appropriately consider the extremely petty context in which this case arose, and because one of the petitioners is also the Justice writing this opinion, we reverse.

 

Background

On Monday, March 11, as the Law Weekly Executive Board was brainstorming articles for the week of March 18, Editor-in-Chief and Chief Justice of this Court, Andrew Allard erroneously referred to Women’s History Month as “International Women’s Month.” An all-male group of Law Weekly board members then proceeded to discuss writing an article about it without initially asking either Petitioner – who were both in the room at the time and actively working on the paper – if they, as women, would want to write an article about the so-called “International Women’s Month.” The record reveals that when calling out the error, Petitioner Sandu jokingly offered to write a COPA about production editors versus patriarchy, to which Chief Justice Allard replied, “That’s a great idea!” and actually assigned her to write it.  Thus arises this suit.

Though steps were taken immediately afterward to rectify these grievous oversights, Petitioners’ complaint claims that the initial error, which Chief Justice Allard attributed to a confusion between International Women’s Day and Women’s History Month, is evidence of a “persistent and pernicious pattern” which “dismiss[es], minimiz[es], or otherwise ignor[es]” celebrations of women. Petitioners attribute this pattern to The Patriarchy®’s influence over “the Chief Justice and his cronies.” In response, Allard said, “I thought The Patriarchy® was just about horses. Also, I’m not even a party to this suit. Why am I here, again?” before returning to his Mojo Dojo Casa Law Weekly Office.

Petitioners argue that the existence of The Patriarchy® is a violation of Equal Protection and that the severe emotional harm that The Patriarchy® has caused them, particularly during the aforementioned Women’s History Month, necessitates immediate and definitive action. Petitioners further rely upon the Declaration of the Rights of Woman and of the Female Citizen in asserting their right to be fully included in the article assignment process.

 

I.

 Jurisdiction is proper in this case. Not allowing this Court to hear the suit would deny the Court of a potentially funny opinion, which violates the Court’s fundamental commitment to the Bit. In response, The Patriarchy® argues that the funniest thing that can happen to this suit is to dismiss it right away, and that granting the suit would only result in now-stale references to Barbie (2023). “Last week’s opinion was about sunflower seeds,” Respondent points out, claiming that this week’s suit cannot possibly live up to such a high pettiness standard. Thus, Respondent argues that the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over what The Patriarchy® calls a “distinctly non-petty complaint. I mean, just look at me. I’m everywhere!”

We disagree. Where the context in which a case arises is petty, that pettiness may be construed to apply to the entire case, even if the underlying issue would not otherwise fall into this Court’s pettiness jurisdiction. This is precisely one such case of constructive pettiness. The whole issue arose because Chief Justice Allard misspoke. Furthermore, his mistake, by making the month “international” actually assumed that more countries beyond the United States celebrated women for the month of March. And Justice Sandu was ultimately assigned to write the article. But because she was assigned to write the article, she may wield that power with impunity. Our precedent permits justices to rule on cases in which they themselves are also parties.[2]


II.

The Patriarchy® violates Petitioner’s right to be included in the article assignment process. As Chief Justice Allard himself will attest, it can be difficult to get editors willing to write articles, whether that be due to scheduling conflicts, workload, or simply not showing up to meetings, thereby making it impossible for them to be…enthusiastically persuaded to write. However, The Patriarchy® caused the Law Weekly Executive Board to not consider its female members in assigning articles, even articles about Women’s History Month. This Court holds that the women of the Law Weekly deserve the same right as any other member to avoid eye contact and hope that they don’t get asked to write something that week, in line with the doctrine of nolo ire, sed invitari volo.[3]  And while it might be funny for Production Editors to lose in a case on which they themselves rule, it would also be funny to win on a suit they were assigned to write which is based on the allegation that they are not assigned enough to write. In cases where both outcomes are equally funny, the most absurd outcome shall prevail.

Respondent argues that giving women preferential treatment for articles about Women's History Month and other women’s issues would in fact be a violation of due process and equal protection. However, this argument fails to comprehend Petitioners’ true complaint. The harm being alleged here is not that Petitioners were not given preferential treatment in the assignment of articles but rather that they were not initially considered at all. Classification on the basis of sex is “an invidious discrimination and invalid under due process principles” where “it is not one having a fair and substantial relation to the object of the legislation . . . .”[4]  Furthermore, “[t]o give a mandatory preference to members of either sex over members of the other, merely to accomplish the elimination of hearings on the merits, is to make the very kind of arbitrary legislative choice forbidden by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and whatever may be said as to the positive values of avoiding intrafamily controversy, the choice in this context may not lawfully be mandated solely on the basis of sex.”[5] Ignoring women’s abilities to contribute to the Law Weekly plainly contradicts equal protection.

Petitioners further cite Olympe De Gouges for the proposition that “ignorance, neglect, or contempt for the rights of woman are the sole causes of public misfortunes and governmental corruption.”[6] Because I am one of the petitioners, I must necessarily agree with Petitioners’ claim. Finding against The Patriarchy®, especially given that the current Editor-in-Chief and Editor-in-Chief Emeritus are men, is therefore necessary to ensure the integrity of the Law Weekly and its leadership. It is for their sake as well as ours that The Patriarchy® cannot be permitted to prevail.

The District Court’s order dismissing the case is thus reversed, and relief shall be granted, among other remedies within the Court’s discretion, in the form of a mandatory viewing of Legally Blonde (2001) and Barbie (2023).

 

Demitry, J., concurring.

 Yeet.

 

Allard, J., concurring in the judgment.

I concur with the outcome of this case, as I am persuaded that it is the funniest possible disposition, and my clerks warn me that the optics of ruling against the Court’s women during International Women’s Month (or whatever it’s called) would be really bad. I may be ignorant, but I’m not Samuel Alito. So I’ll acquiesce.

But I write separately to defend my honor. The majority accuses me of horrible indignities and ludicrous misstatements. Most of these accusations are essentially correct. But did they not think of my feelings? I am a simple man with the brain function of an even simpler man. If I get two important celebrations dedicated to the mighty women of the world, must I be pilloried in this way? As the majority admits, my mistake if anything elevated the importance of women. And this is the thanks I get? Fine. If you need me I’ll be in my Mojo Dojo Casa House, respectfully dissenting. Even though this is a concurrence.


---
ms7mn@virginia.edu

[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/patriarchy.

[2] See Section H Gays v. Lake and [additional citation].

[3] “I don’t want to go, but I want to be invited.”

[4] Moritz v. Commissioner, 469 F.2d 466 (10th Cir. 1972).

[5] Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71 (1971).

[6] Olympe de Gouges, The Declaration of the Rights of Woman (September 1791), Liberty, Equality, Fraternity: Exploring the French Revolution, accessed march 17, 2024, https://revolution.chnm.org/d/293.

Hot Bench: Andrew Allard'25

While the President has the State of the Union Address, the Editor-in-Chief of the Law Weekly has the Hot Bench. And with that, I welcome this paper’s EIC and Chief Justice of the Court of Petty Appeals, Andrew Allard. Your Grace, welcome to the Hot Bench.

Thank you, Mr. Coleman. It’s a pleasure to be here (against my will).

 

Please tell us where you are from and where you completed undergrad/ forged your transcript from?

I am from a cute little state called New Hampshire. We have the smallest coastline of any coastal state in the country—I’m from that area. It’s a beautiful place with lots of liquor stores on the Interstate—and better maple syrup than Vermont.

 And I did my undergrad at George Washington University.[1] Go Coloni– I mean Revolutionaries!

 

Being a New Hampshirite, do you think the motto “Live free or die” is consistent with the Supremacy Clause? I think there may be a number of Granite Staters who believe in the nullification doctrine.

Definitely—my principled position is that NH law alone should be allowed to nullify federal law. Kidding aside, I do admire my state’s weird curmudgeonly attitude. Being from New Hampshire comes with an innate desire to “live off the grid.” That said, it’s more often “live free and die.” We are the only state that allows people to ride motorcycles without a helmet, regardless of age. You can guess how that goes.

 

How has the transition been to the EIC role? Beyond fiscal stability, what are your goals for the paper?

Fiscal stability would be nice. Our readers might have noticed that we’ve not been in print recently. Sorry about that. Printing woes aside, I’m thrilled to be in this position, and I’m fortunate to have a fantastic team of editors—present company mostly included. I’m most interested in improving students’ access to the paper. Apart from getting us back in print (lol), that includes making the website more user-friendly and making it easier to reach us, submit Professor Quotes, and the like.

 

You are quoted on our office whiteboard as saying, “Make it more radical.” What did you mean by that?

That’s true. I did say that. But I honestly have no memory of what I was talking about at the time. Maybe that’s for the best, but I’m not sure if it would look better or worse in context. For safety’s sake (and my employability), let’s assume I was reacting to Tony Hawk doing a kickflip.

 

Would you like to respond to claims that your election was undemocratic and predetermined?

Those allegations are mostly correct. I say mostly because while my electoral “victory” was supposed to be a sure thing, a last-minute attempted coup almost completely upended things. People so often leave out that side of the story, which I think is a little uncharitable.

 

After your one-year term expires (and we graduate from law school) what are your plans? Have they changed at all since coming to law school?

They’ve certainly changed, which I think is true for most of us. This summer, I’ll be at Milbank in New York, which I’m super excited for. My long-term goal is still to become the president of a small country. Maybe Iceland.

 

What is something you would like to accomplish in our remaining year?

This is weirdly specific and unrelated to Law School. I started a volunteer project with Radio IQ last year. They have a reading service for blind listeners in the Shenandoah Valley. Readers make recordings of local news and books. I started working on a recording of Candide, which is one of my favorite books. I would love to find the time to finish that project.

 

Lightning Round! Favorite New Hampshire mountain?

Mount Monadnock! Supposedly it’s one of the most frequently climbed mountains in the world. And for good reason.

 

Favorite case you’ve read in law school?

 

There are a few. But I’ll go with Justice Arabian’s dissent in Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Village Condominium Assn. I didn’t think I’d ever read a judge's opinion of the merits of cat ownership, but I’m glad I got to.

 

Where is Kate Middleton?

Who?

 

One food, rest of your life.

Oh, God. Is it cheating to name a broad category of food? I won’t do that. Pho. That way I get noodles, meat, and soup. The three food groups.

 

Describe your St. Patrick’s Day celebration in 3 words.

Wore green necklace. (yikes)

 

Which Law Weekly editor is most likely to stage a coup d’état?

I don’t want to tip her off, but [redacted] looks more and more sus with every meeting.

 

Worst article you have ever written for the Law Weekly.

I think most of what I’ve written would look at home in the pages of the Times. But, if I must pick one… probably my COPA against Punxsutawney Phil. That was scraping the bottom of the barrel.

 

Best article.

I’d go with Open Democracy: A New American Experiment? Not for the quality of the writing but because it’s a topic I’m passionate about.


---
Interviewed by: Garrett Coleman'25 

[1] Omission of the “the” is intentional.

Court of Petty Appeals: Consumers Resolutely Opposed to the NaCl Heap (CRONCH) v. Conagra Brands

Consumers Resolutely Opposed to the NaCl Heap (CRONCH) 
v. 
Conagra Brands 
76 U.Va 17 (2024) 


Allard, C.J., delivering the opinion of the court.

This case comes before us on appeal from the District Court of Petty Complaints. Petitioner, Consumers Resolutely Opposed to the NaCl Heap (CRONCH), is a group of students interested in “preserving the high quality of Student Affairs snacks that the founders intended.” CRONCH brought this suit after “an unfortunate snack experience” involving Respondent’s sunflower seeds. Respondent, Conagra Brands, sells various packaged foodstuffs, including the product at issue in this case, DAVID Sunflower Seeds. Petitioner alleged in their complaint that the amount of salt in a snack bag of DAVID seeds is “excessive” and “unreasonable as a matter of law.” Conagra moved to dismiss the suit for failure to state a petty claim. The District Court granted Conagra’s motion, reasoning that while students have a right to a good meal, those rights do not extend to snacks like the ones at issue in this case. This appeal followed. We granted cert to determine whether Students’ alimentary rights extend to snacks from the Student Affairs Office. Because the District Court failed to appropriately weigh this Court’s precedent protecting student’s right to eat for free, we reverse.


Background

DAVID Sunflower Seeds is a well-known sunflower seed snack product, made available in several flavors, including jalapeño, buffalo, and sour cream & onion. At issue in this case is the original salted and roasted variety. These snacks are marketed and distributed widely across various retail outlets and in the Student Affairs Office. Members of CRONCH, all students at the Law School, allege that they grabbed a bag of DAVID Sunflowers Seeds in the early months of 2024. These students, initially unfamiliar with the brand, reported examining it thinking, “Oh, seeds? Birds eat those. They must be healthy.” Upon tasting them, the CRONCH students realized their mistake. They noted an exceptionally high salt content, prompting disgust and concern. Not wanting to consume enough salt to kill a horse, some students threw the snack away, feeling shame for wasting valuable SA Snacks. Others, feeling compelled to finish the bag, suffered severe dehydration from doing so.

The record reveals that a forty-six-gram “snack size” bag of original flavor DAVID Sunflowers Seeds—the kind available in Student Affairs—contains 1,960 milligrams of salt, equivalent to 85 percent of the recommended daily value of salt and comprising more than 4 percent of the snack by weight. The CRONCH students complain that no reasonable person would willingly consume this amount of salt in one sitting and that Conagra should thus be required to put a warning label on the packaging indicating that the snack is “inedibly salty.” Conagra responds by citing product reviews purporting to show that many consumers enjoy the high salinity of their products. Resp’t’s Br. 12 (“The level of saltiness is right where it needs to be.⁦”). The Court, its Justices having sampled the product, agree wholeheartedly with CRONCH. But we must nonetheless consider Conagra’s legal obligations under these saline circumstances.


I

Jurisdiction is proper in this case. Conagra has deliberately availed itself of the Law School's market by entering its products into the stream of snackage. And the CRONCH students' complaint—in essence, that some of the free snacks the Law School provides them are too salty—is undoubtedly petty. We may thus proceed to the legal sufficiency of CRONCH’s complaint.

 

II

This Court has a sacred duty to “defend the right of citizens of UVA Law to a decent meal.” UVA Law v. Barracks Road Chipotle, 74 U.Va. 9 (2021). In upholding that duty, this Court has repeatedly held that students’ alimentary rights may be asserted against parties providing or consuming food at the Law School. See Hungry People v. Law School Student Orgs, 75 U.Va. 12 (2022) (enjoining all student organizations from preventing students from eating free lunch until after events); Students v. Empty Food Table, 75 U.Va. 10 (2022) (enjoining 1Ls from taking food from events hosted by organizations of which they are not members); 1Ls v. 2Ls and 3Ls, 75 U.Va. 6 (2022) (enjoining 1Ls from consuming more than a third of the free food at Law School events).

CRONCH argues that these cases establish students’ rights to quality snacks from any source that willingly offers up food. CRONCH also makes compelling policy arguments. Noting that grocery prices are at record highs, they ask the Court to protect students’ wallets and stomachs.

In response, Conagra distinguishes this Court’s alimentary rights cases on the ground that they involved meals, not snacks. Conagra concedes that students have a right to a decent meal but argues that extending that right to encompass snacks would open the floodgates to a slew of food and drink-related litigation. Conagra suggests in its brief that students might sue the City of Charlottesville for its water quality since city water is distributed to the students via the Law School’s water fountains. Or worse yet, disgruntled editors might sue the Law Weekly for the quality of food provided at its meetings.[1]

Conagra’s concerns are mostly misplaced. The study of law is hungry work, and law students’ rights to quality food must be vigorously protected. Even if our holding today may encourage opportunistic litigation by gourmands, courts can adequately dispose of meritless food claims by applying the Stomach Formula. If the burden of improving the quality of food is less than the probability of students’ being dissatisfied times the extent of students’ hanger, then the failure to make such an improvement likely constitutes an actionable diminution of students’ alimentary rights.

Applying this formula to the instant case, we find that CRONCH has stated a sufficient claim for denial of food rights. The students ask for a mere warning label indicating the honestly ridiculously high salt content of DAVID sunflower seeds. The burden on Conagra to apply such a label is minimal. Admittedly, the extent of students’ hanger in cases involving snacks is diminished. Disappointment with the quality of a snack is unlike cases where there is a delay or outright denial of a meal, which has the potential to upend a student’s entire day. But here, the probability of dissatisfaction saves CRONCH’s claim. Mineral-craving ibexes notwithstanding, there can be no doubt that few would willingly reach for Conagra’s seeds knowing they have been imbued with the flavor of the Dead Sea. For these reasons, we conclude that the District Court prematurely dismissed CRONCH’s claim. CRONCH is entitled to have their stomachs full and their claim heard in full. The District Court’s order dismissing the case is thus reversed.


---
tya2us@virginia.edu

[1] Conagra’s second example is puzzling, since the Domino’s pizza provided to Law Weekly editors has never before been complained of.

Hot Bench: Monica Sandu '24

Why did you come to UVA Law and what are your plans post-grad?

Well, I grew up in Virginia—in fact, I’m from Blacksburg, the home of Virginia Tech! I did my undergrad at William & Mary, where I was a double major in International Relations and French. My sophomore year, I took a class on international law, which presented some fascinating questions: What is law? How do laws shape our philosophy of the world? I wanted to explore those questions and to make a positive difference in people’s lives through what I had learned. My older sister went to UVA for undergrad, so I’d visited Main Grounds with her a few times, and she always spoke very highly of Charlottesville and of the UVA community. As I looked more into it, I found that UVA Law was exactly where I wanted to be.

After graduation (and the Bar!), I’m going to be working at a plaintiff’s class action litigation firm in Prairie Village, Kansas near Kansas City! I had a wonderful 2L summer there, and I’m excited to be going back!

 

Any favorite memories from law school/what will you miss the most when graduating?

I’ll definitely miss my 1L section–shoutout to Section A! Some of my favorite memories are all the fun get-togethers we’ve had over the years. We had an end-of-year’s “Oscars” after the first year, where I won the award for Best Fun Facts! I now keep the mini-Oscar trophy on my desk next to my pencil holder. I’ll also miss the fun and fascinating classes I have taken; some personal favorites were Roman Law and Hallmarks of Distinguished Advocacy. Most of all, I’ll miss seeing all of my friends in person every day.

 

What would you consider your Law Weekly legacy? Any advice for future production editors?

You mean besides introducing the Law Weekly staff to my impeccable taste in music at every meeting? Well, the job of the Production Editor (besides controlling the Spotify) is to put the paper together. From a strictly technical sense, I could say my legacy is my eye for kerning.

In a more personal sense, I consider my legacy to be those times that people enjoyed my work, when it made their day a little brighter or taught them something new. My fall semester of 1L, I drew a cartoon of a cow in a suit holding a gavel in its mouth, with the caption “Mooooooot Court.” I remember seeing someone in ScoCo reading the paper, pointing it out to their friend, and having a laugh. That’s something that’s really stayed with me.

As for future production editors, proficiency with InDesign will come with time and practice. Images should fully fill the columns and align with the top of the text; otherwise, text-wrapping is a nightmare. Beware: InDesign has no spell check. Use your powers of Spotify wisely.

 

What did you do for spring break?

I spent the week up in Northern Virginia with my family! While there, we went to a special exhibit called “The Future of Orchids: Conservation and Collaboration” at the Smithsonian American Art Museum in Washington, D.C. Overall, it’s been a fun, relaxing time with loved ones.

 

Lightning round: Most recent Netflix (or other) binge?

This isn’t quite “binging,” but I’m into a podcast called Terrible Lizards. It’s all about dinosaurs and covers everything from deep dives on individual species to dinosaur behavior and insight into the field of paleontology. It’s great to listen to on long drives.

 

Favorite pizza place? 

The Law Weekly office on Monday afternoons.

 

Music while studying or silence? If music, what songs?

Typically, I prefer to work in silence or to pure instrumentals. My go-to study music for a while was Vivaldi’s The Four Seasons. I’m also a fan of waltzes and of John Powell’s score from How to Train Your Dragon. I’ve recently been listening to playlists of fantasy/adventure Medieval-esque music.

 

Lastly, is there anything about you that UVA Law students don’t already know that you wish to share?

I took mechanical drafting for two years when I was in high school, where I learned to create technical drawings of machine parts and tools both by hand and using computer software. I took the official exam and got my mechanical drafter’s certification when I was a junior, though it’s expired now. It’s not a universe away from what I do now with the Law Weekly, though prior to becoming production editor, the last time I had used InDesign was as a high school freshman. I guess you can say . . . graphic design is my passion.


---
Interviewed by Mark Graff ‘26

Court of Petty Appeals: Ex parte Law Weekly

Ex parte Law Weekly 
76 U.Va 16 (2024) 


J. ALLARD delivers the opinion of the Court.

This ex parte proceeding was brought before the court by members of the Executive Board following the events of February 26. During the meeting for annual elections, former Editor-in-Chief, Nikolai Morse ’24 explained to the Law Weekly staff that the Board had agreed to adopt election procedures restricting the eligibility of candidates for Editor-in-Chief. Specifically, Morse said that only graduating 3Ls who had previously served as Managing Editor would be eligible for the top position. The Board members, who claim to have never agreed to these terms, recognized Morse’s efforts as an attempted coup d’etat. Immediately, the four other members of the Board—Monica Sandu ’24, Garrett Coleman ’25, Ethan Brown ’25, and Andrew Allard ’25—voted to override the Editor-in-Chief and allow the staff to elect a new Executive Board.

After a secret ballot vote led to a resounding defeat for Morse—who received only two votes written in remarkably similar handwriting—the Executive Board sought to swear in the newly elected Editor-in-Chief, Andrew Allard. Morse refused to recognize the results of the election, claiming that it was held in violation of the Law Weekly Constitution. Morse then called on the student body to resist the “puppet Executive Board” that he claimed was installed by Darden students.

Morse has locked and barricaded himself in the Law Weekly office—and reportedly swallowed all of the keys. The Executive Board has been governing the newspaper in exile. They ask the Court for declaratory relief recognizing Allard as Editor-in-Chief and for a writ of mandamus ordering Morse to reopen the Law Weekly offices. Because Morse has fortified his compound to keep out process servers, the Court has permitted the Executive Board to pursue this action ex parte.

 

I

The first issue before the Court is whether the Law Weekly’s Constitution permits the Board to adopt the candidate eligibility restrictions that Morse attempted to apply in this year’s elections. We hold that it does.

Article IV of the Constitution provides broad guidelines for the organization’s electoral procedures. Section 1 specifies that elections shall be held during the fifth week of the spring semester and authorizes the Editorial Board to “promulgate and maintain rules regarding the specific procedures for elections.” The Constitution imposes no explicit restrictions on these rules and procedures, though positions are restricted to “students in at least their second semester.”

The Board notoriously employs arcane methods to select its successors. Many successful “campaigns” result from backroom dealmaking, and some Editors-in-Chief have opted to hand-pick their successors. But never before has an Editor-in-Chief functionally handpicked himself as successor—until now.

Despite its historical practice, the Board argued that the word “election” as used in Article IV implies contestation. We disagree. There are many U.S. states in which elections are hardly contested, if they can even be described as free and fair. See e.g., the “Commonwealth” of Massachusetts. Moreover, we find no constitutional provision forbidding the restrictions at issue here. The Constitution empowers the Board to adopt “rules regarding the specific procedures for elections.”  The Court declines to impose atextual limits on that power. Indeed, the fact that the Constitution restricts Board positions to “students in . . . their second semester” suggests that the Framers did not oppose seniority-based eligibility requirements.

 

II

The second issue in this case is whether the Executive Board properly exercised its Article I authority to call for popular elections. We hold that they did.

Article I, Section 2 establishes the Executive Board of the Law Weekly. It is “comprised of an Editor-in-Chief, Executive Editor, Managing Editor, Production Editor, and Features Editor.” Section 2 makes the Executive Board “responsible of [sic] the quality and good taste of the publication.” It also empowers the Executive Board to “overrule decisions of the Editor-in-Chief” by a three-fifths majority.

Section 3 establishes the Editorial Board which is “comprised of the members of the Executive Board,” along with other editors as appointed by a majority of the Executive Board. The Editorial Board may also overrule the Editor-in-Chief but by a two-thirds majority.

Two arguments against the popular elections were offered in this case. Firstly, the Executive Board, having responsibility for “the quality and good taste” of the Law Weekly, cannot responsibly allow the position to be popularly elected. That voters ultimately chose Allard as Morse’s successor is offered as evidence showing the folly of this populist approach. Secondly, it is argued that under the unitary executive board theory, the Editor-in-Chief may exercise unbridled authority when Board members are found to be in mutiny. We reject both of these arguments.

The unitary executive board theory finds no support in the Constitution’s text or historical practice. This Court will not allow such laughable doctrines to impede its sacred duty to harass the Editor-in-Chief on their way out.[1] And while we agree that the editors have committed an embarrassing blunder by electing Allard as Editor-in-Chief, we cannot allow their folly to override the Constitution. As discussed in Part I, Article IV grants the Editorial Board power to set election rules. Because more than two-thirds of the Board voted to hold popular elections, we are bound to recognize the results. The Law Weekly staff are no doubt happy to have rid themselves of the tyrannical dictator Morse. As though they wished on a monkey’s paw, they are now stuck with the democratically-elected Mr. Allard. May God have mercy on their souls—because this Court sure as hell won’t.

 It is so ordered.

Morse, C.J. Emeritus, Dissenting.

Et tu, Brute?

In the fall of 2021, I entered these august halls and set my sights on the most prestigious and powerful organization in UVA Law: the Virginia Law Weekly. I now find myself, having labored tirelessly for years in service of this great publication, being pilloried by those I thought my loyal servants comrades. Alas, fate is a cruel mistress.

Each week when I shared free pizza, my sharp wit, and brilliant story ideas, I imagined myself amongst friends. I thought that we were engaged in pursuit of a common mission[2] and yet did not realize that these erstwhile editors laid the blame for the fault in their stars at my feet. And whilst any impartial observer could not help but agree that during my tenure a Colossus bestrode the Virginia Law Weekly, who could have predicted I would be brought so low. And now my executioners ask me to go gentle into that good night!

Yet, if it is possible to measure the success of one’s leadership, is that measure not found in the ability of the organization to thrive in your absence? This publication will undoubtedly continue to grow and reach new heights, and since it seems the UVA Law administration (and my wife) refuses to let me enroll for another year, I will have to move on.

Despite my fervent appeals to every legal trick (and a few extralegal ones) that I’ve learned the past few years, I cannot deny the merit of Chief Justice Allard’s arguments. While my honor and dedication to this great publication compels my dissent, I will rest easy knowing that the Law Weekly is in good (if perhaps a bit power-hungry) hands.

I very respectfully dissent.

[1] See UVA Law Student Body v. Tonseth, 74 U.Va 10 (2021) (ordering the Editor-in-Chief to “hard labor and cultural reeducation training, to be carried out in the Darden basement”); see also Gay Section H Law Weekly Staff v. Lake, 75 U.Va 16 (2023) (dragging the outgoing Editor-in-Chief for confusing two admittedly similar editors).

[2] Toppling the Virginia Law Review, of course.

Hot Bench: Nikolai Morse '24

 

 

Hi! The easiest question first, where are you from? And how did you end up at U VA Law?

I was born in Mainz, Germany. My dad was in the Army, my mother grew up there. We moved to the suburbs of Chicago when I was like two and I grew up there most of my life.

 

Behold my Intelligentsia coffee mug!

I love intelligentsia! So yeah, I lived in the Chicago suburbs, then went to William & Mary for undergrad and after working in Chicago and the Bay Area for a few years, I came here for law school. Virginia schools just keep letting me in!

 

Relatable. So the big question everyone wants to know: how do you feel about your tenure as all-powerful leader at Law Weekly?

 I mean, it's been great. It’s probably been the thing I've spent the most time on in law school, even before being EIC. I’m really gonna miss it.

It’s this thing that…doesn't really add much to your resume. But I spent a lot of time on it over the years. I would just say law school is already super serious. And so it's nice to have something that kind of helps us to poke fun at this whole crazy experience.

 

That’s a good way of putting it and it is so important to have a break from the seriousness. What has been the best and worst experience with Law Weekly?

 I think the toughest thing was when three members of the undergrad football team were killed. It wasn’t something I was EIC for, but I was on the board and we talked a lot about how to address it. And it’s weird because I wonder how many people actually read the Law Weekly, but of those that do, we still want to try to do the best we can to be really thoughtful about these events.

I think the best experience might have actually been from 1L year when I wrote an article for the April Fools edition which was about how Georgetown had fallen out of the T14. And I satirically joked that they bribed their way back in. But then the day before we published our paper, the new rankings dropped and they were number 14 again. An April Fools’ miracle.

 

That's awesome. So, after law school will you be pursuing another position with—and I quote—"absolute power and total immunity from prosecution?”

 Oh, gosh. Well, I'll actually be clerking for a federal judge.

 

Oh whoops. I won’t write that.

 No you should, it would be funny. But no, I'm pretty sure I'm an at-will employee. But it’ll be a great experience. I'll clerk and then I'll go to a law firm.

 

What drew you to Law Weekly?

 I went to the student activities fair my 1L year and they just had the most ridiculous table. Like, they all had Red Solo Cups and a boom box playing, and the EIC at that time was a very bro guy called Phil who is awesome—and he's really terrific!—but he and everyone else were just vibing and hanging out. I was like, this seems way more fun than some other things.

 I also worked in finance for six years before law school. So the longest writing I did were emails. And I really wanted an easy, fun way to get reps in writing and just banging out 800 words every week. Super helpful.

 

Love that! Last big question. I was at the SBA election debates you and Andrew were moderating, so I figured we could turn the turntables on your questions. If you were running for SBA President, what would your platform be?

 Um, actual transparency. I want to know how much money SBA has and where it all goes.

 

Oh I do remember you were very focused on that.

 It's kind of crazy. This is a public institution and it's our money. So I don't understand what the harm is in telling us how much there is and where it's going. I imagine most of it just goes to the events that we all want. So anyways I'd say actual transparency, more events, and basically I think that's the only function of student government. Just tell us what's going on and what you're doing. Give us more things to do, more events. And then like every once in a while when there's tension between different communities at the law school, try to mediate those disputes.

 

 Ok, lightning round! What day does the week start, Sunday or Monday?

 Monday?

 

Why?

Because you don't have to do anything until Monday.

 

Copy that. Um, Wes Anderson—Yes or no?

Yeah, sure. The um, was it the Darjeeling limited?

 

That sounds familiar.

You don't know your Wes Anderson?

 

No. I don't like Wes Anderson.

You don't like Wes Anderson??

 

No!

Wes Anderson is definitely into Wes Anderson.

 

I feel like it’s the Tumblr aesthetic but not in a fun nostalgic way.

It depends what Tumblr you're on. There’s a whole Edward Scissorhands Tumblr, which is a whole other corner.

 

That’s true. Get you someone that can do both, I guess. Best place in Cville for French small plates and super cool Front of House staff?

Oh, C&O obviously.[1]*

 

Obviously.


---
Interviewed by Nicky Demitry '26 

[1]* alley light is disowning u

Court of Petty Appeals: Not All Friends are Lawyers (NAFAL) v. Student Bar Association

Not All Friends are Lawyers (NAFAL)
v.
Student Bar Association
76 U.Va 15 (2024)


Coleman, J. delivers the opinion of the court.

We are here to review the constitutionality of a new piece of compromise legislation aimed at securing the Barrister’s Ball. After passing the divided chambers of the Student Bar Association, L.B. 01 was signed into law on the eve of the 2024 Ball. It was immediately challenged by the nonprofit group Not All Friends are Lawyers, or NAFAL, for violating their due process and equal protection rights. The lawsuit was joined by Lawyers with Friends, who added a claim that the law violates their rights under the Privileges and Immunities Clause. In the spirit of judicial restraint, for which I am widely admired, we reject these claims and affirm the constitutionality of L.B. 01 in full. We also choose to address complaints of students who purchased non-drinking tickets but still wanted access to the open bar.

 

I[1]

A crisis at the Ball has been steadily growing for years. In 2023, the ticket selection process resulted in much angst for the 1Ls, who were barely even guaranteed space for themselves. At a political rally following the ticket release, then-president Juhi Desai ’23 was met with thunderous applause after suggesting that we “shut down the Ball until we figure out what the hell is going on!” Other influential law students suggested that we restrict tickets to outsiders with J.D.s.

This discontent manifested itself in compromise legislation, which aimed to limit ticket sales to outsiders while still keeping the Ball somewhat open. L.B. 01 has three contested sections. The first orders that the Ball co-chairs immediately close ticket sales when the flow of non-law students reaches 300. § 2 narrows the definition of “eligible guest” to “husband, wife, spouse, boyfriend, girlfriend, or significant other.” And § 3 allows the co-chairs to summarily eject any non-law student who fails to laugh at a law student’s legal joke.

 

II

NAFAL first posits that the new bill is violative of their due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. With respect to the Fifth Amendment, they have a point here. Any guest, having failed to laugh at a law student’s joke, can summarily lose the rest of her night. The ticket would be worthless. Travel expenses would be wasted. However, these guests would be entitled to adequate process. First, they would be notified beforehand of the standard: laugh or be ejected. Second, the Barrister’s co-chairs would still serve as factfinders to determine whether the slight had actually happened. This Court is fine with limited adjudications taking place outside of petty courts, especially when efficiency demands it at events like the Ball.

With respect to the equal protection claim, we first need to note that non-law student guests are not a protected class. And rational basis review is a forgiving master. Counsel did point out that I am sometimes willing to apply a forceful rational basis review.[2] But counsel failed to observe that the designation in that case was harming me.

The argument under the Privileges and Immunities Clause is most interesting, but it also fails. It posits that a foundational privilege of being a law student is taking people to our fancy functions. The nerdy can show off, the status-obsessed can go on about how many resources big firms have to fund these events, and the average law student can share a good night with their significant other. While I am tempted by this argument, I think it ultimately misstates history because it presupposes that law students have always had many guests to choose from before a Ball.

 

III

This Court would also like to address complaints with respect to the drinking tickets. Some have complained that it was an invasion of privacy to mark the non-drinkers with permanent ink to prevent them from accessing the open bar. We find this restriction to be a reasonable means of implementing a valid fiscal goal. According to one of the event’s organizers, revenue increased by nearly 20 percent in response to the preliminary scare tactics. Barrister’s cannot operate if a critical mass of cheap law students buy discounted tickets and then commit honor code violations to get drinks. So, while physically marking non-drinkers was an aggressive choice, we understand the necessity.

 

IV

In response to widespread dissatisfaction, our legislative branch came to a compromise to secure the Ball. This Court is not prepared to let the rights of non-law students diminish the enjoyment of our future lawyers. The judgment of the appellate division is reversed and L.B. 01 is good law.

Sandu, J., concurring in the judgment.

While I believe the Court’s decision to be sound, I write separately to propose a long-term solution to the recurring problem of limited Barrister’s tickets. Barrister’s is to former prom royalty what the Libel Show is to former theater kids. It is a cornerstone to the mental and social well-being of all law students. And yet, no law student is an island. While I understand the necessity of restricting ticket sales in the current state of events, I  cannot help but be reminded of how every year, at least some in our community will be disappointed by what should be, in the words of High School Musical 3: Senior Year, “a night to remember.”

The root of the problem appears to be a space limitation—both the Forum Hotel and Boar’s Head Resort before it simply cannot accommodate every single law student and their entourage who wants to party. Our current building has housed the Law School since 1974.[3] During that time, Darden first moved out of Slaughter Hall into its current building in 1996, and now has the brand new Forum Hotel at its disposal. Why should the Law School content itself with what Darden has left behind? The most obvious solution, therefore, is to invest the proceeds of the ticket sales this year into the construction of a new Barrister’s Ball venue on North Grounds, one grand enough to accommodate even the most social of law students. Only then can we truly be free to party.

[1] Actual headings, while helpful, are for the lower petty courts.

[2]  See Students for Attending Cool Events v. UVA Law Faculty, 76 U.Va. 13 (2024) (Coleman, J., dissenting) (“Because excluding me from any event reeks of arbitrariness, I would hold that the ‘open to faculty’ exclusion violates the Equal Protection Clause.”).

[3] https://www.law.virginia.edu/charlottesville/layout.

Hot Bench: Isabel Cook '25

Hi, Isabel! Thanks for joining me for this week’s Hot Bench. To get started, I recently saw your name on a school-wide email blast with the prestigious title of Head Field Monitor. Can you tell me more about that?

I don’t know about prestigious, but I am pretty excited to be helping out with this year’s UVA Law Softball Tournament! We’re welcoming dozens of other law schools to Grounds for a really fun weekend (and raising money for a good cause), so I really encourage everyone to get involved by volunteering as a Field Monitor.

 

Great, let’s get back to basics. Where are you from, where did you go for undergrad, and what were you up to before coming to law school?

I’m from Columbia, South Carolina, and went down the road (literally) to the University of South Carolina. Go Cocks!!! After undergrad, I worked as a legal assistant at a criminal defense firm. Somehow that didn’t deter me from applying to law school. 

 

It seems that you’ve been on this path for a bit of a while. With that said, what would you be doing right now if you hadn’t come to law school?

Given that I was a History/Political Science double major, probably toiling away in some other grad program with worse employment outcomes. Maybe doing astrological readings for money.

 

What brought you to UVA?

Honestly, it was always my top choice—and when I visited Grounds, it only reaffirmed that this was where I wanted to be. I really fell for the school’s focus on quality of life and collegiality, which luckily have turned out to be more than just talking points. Although I was extremely disappointed to get here and find out that kegs in the library are a far-off dream of law students past.

 

I heard you had a bit of an unusual start to 1L Fall. Can you tell me more about that?

I managed to pick up COVID-19 on the D.C. Metro right before school started and had to miss orientation, so I didn’t exactly get to make a good first impression. My section endearingly dubbed me “Weird COVID Girl.” I got over the COVID part but have yet to beat the “weird” allegations.

 

The spring semester is certainly jam-packed with lots of events. Is there anything you are particularly looking forward to right now?

Even though there are so many fun things going on at the Law School, I’m probably most looking forward to seeing Mason Ramsey at the Jefferson in March. I can’t believe how far Walmart Yodel Boy has come. I hope Lil Nas X comes out for a guest appearance.

 

Lightning round!

Favorite late-night food?

Cookout, of course.

 

I’m glad to see another Cookout stan in the UVA Law community. For those who are still working on perfecting their order, can you share your go-to menu items?

Chicken tender tray with double onion rings and a chocolate peanut butter milkshake. (BYO Lactaid.)

 

What’s an overrated superpower?

Time travel.

 

What is your least favorite sound?

CHEWING NOISES.

 

Would you rather wear a Clemson jersey for one day or be cold-called every day for the rest of law school?

Cold-called!!!!! No question.

 

Favorite class so far?

It’s really hard to pick, but I’d have to say Civil Rights Litigation with Jeffries.


---
Interviewed by Brent Rice '25