Court of Petty Appeals: Law Students of ScoCo v. Bologna

Law Students of ScoCo

v.

Bologna

78 U.Va 10 (2025)

Kaufmann, J., delivers the opinion of the Court, in which Wu, Vanger, Becker, and Demitry, J.J. join.

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

This action comes to us on appeal from a district court order denying injunctive relief to Plaintiffs. We granted cert and now reverse.

I

Earlier this month, Interim President Bologna announced that the Law School plans to expand the 1983 dining room into a “Mega-Faculty Ballroom.” According to the Bologna Administration, faculty members have complained for years of “false imprisonment” by the 1983 dining room. Relegated to the back corner for all of their exclusive events, faculty members allege they have suffered years of torture watching law students traipse around Scott Commons (“ScoCo”), rubbing their freedom in the faculty’s face.

At first, the Bologna Administration assured students that no existing structures would be destroyed to make room for the new edifice. Yet, upon further inquiry, it became known that Bologna plans to tear down ScoCo to accommodate the new construction. Private donors, including the Jefferson Council and others who choose to remain anonymous, are said to be sponsoring the renovation out of the kindness of their hearts.

A class action of law students (“Law Students of ScoCo”) brought suit against the Administration, asserting claims of trespass and public nuisance. The students also moved to enjoin the Administration from starting construction pending the outcome of this litigation.

In denying injunctive relief, the District Court refused to consider the merits of the students’ claims and relied almost entirely on pettiness. The District Court found that “the devastating effects of an injunction in this case cannot be overstated—professors should not have to live another day shackled to the misery that is the 1983 dining room.” While we appreciate the District Court’s adherence to pettiness precedent, the merits of this case could involve even more silly-goofiness, and thus it is our duty to consider them. See PRCP 3 (“Our commitment is to the Bit . . . . In cases where both outcomes are equally funny, the most absurd outcome shall prevail.”).

Using their legal prowess for good, a group of professors, under the pseudonym Professorial Association for Lunches, Aperitifs, and Nouveau-Trumpian Ivory-tower Restaurants (PALANTIR), submitted an extensive amicus brief for the Administration. Bologna and the rest of the Law School staff were too busy being scared of AI to submit a timely Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion, so we will rely on the arguments in PALANTIR’s amicus in rendering a decision.

II

We first consider Plaintiffs’ claim of trespass. Plaintiffs assert that they own ScoCo via adverse possession, and thus the Administration’s proposed destruction is an act of physical trespass on their rightfully owned land. Ownership by adverse possession is established by “(1) actual possession, that is (2) open and notorious, (3) exclusive, (4) continuous, (5) hostile, and (6) that lasts for the required statutory period.” Doran Property Notes. We consider each element in turn:

(1)  On any given day, there are flurries of students actually possessing the space that is ScoCo, and they occupy the space as any owner would—sitting there for hours at a time, pondering life’s greatest mysteries and what the funny holes on the comfy chairs are for. 

(2) If law students are anything, they are open and notorious. The constant chatter, mentor-mentee coffee chats, and rants about proximate cause and consideration make it entirely clear that the space is being occupied by panicky, jobless law students.

(3) Their possession is certainly exclusive. Law students wouldn’t dare forsake their sacred collegial space by sharing it with the Administration. If faculty were to take up a table or sit in any of the comfy chairs, students would whisper super obviously, making the faculty uncomfortable and forcing them to leave.

(4) As for continuity, law students, without fail, are present in ScoCo when reasonable occupants would be. While occupancy ebbs and flows depending on the availability of free food, whether the Sidley cafe is open, and how close exams are, these are all reasonable justifications.

(5)  The existence of this litigation alone satisfies the hostility requirement.

(6) Lastly, PALANTIR argues that Plaintiffs’ possession had not lasted for the required statutory period, because at most, current law students have only occupied ScoCo for three years. But PALANTIR (like me on my property exam) forgets about the principle of tacking. Parties in “privity” can string together successive periods of adverse possession in order to get over the statutory hump. Traditionally, privity is established through mutual or successive interests in property, like a buyer and seller, or landlord and tenant. But the Court of Petty Appeals is prepared today to recognize another method—trauma bonding is henceforth sufficient to render current and prior law students in privity with one another.

Plaintiffs are therefore likely to succeed on the merits of their adverse possession claim, rendering them rightful owners of ScoCo. The merits of their trespass claim flow from this finding.

III

We will now quickly resolve the affirmative defense of necessity that PALANTIR raises in their amicus brief. PALANTIR argues that the Administration’s trespass is necessary to protect them from the potentially dangerous situation that will ensue if nothing is done about the deplorable conditions of the 1983 dining room. “As a group of law professors ourselves,” PALANTIR writes, “we can assure the Court that if nothing is done to free us from this dining room cage, we will put our whole professussys into making the lives of the Administration as miserable as possible.”

Staying true to our precedent and rules of procedure, the Court is obligated to let this play out. Hence, the affirmative defense fails.

IV

In conclusion, despite the general pettiness analysis that the District Court employed, we will grant Plaintiffs preliminary injunctive relief pending the result of this litigation.

The Court is, however, aware that regardless of the ultimate disposition of this case at the District Court level, the Bologna Administration is almost certain to continue with the destruction of ScoCo anyway. They face immense pressure from disgruntled faculty, “donors” looking for returns on their investments, and their own desire to stress students out to prepare them for Big Law. While we cannot give legal advice, we *strongly recommend* Plaintiffs stage a sit-in during the demolition, forcing the Administration to either run you over with bulldozers or pay a really big settlement. See Gay Section H Law Weekly Staff v. Lake, 75 U.Va 16 (2023) (“There is nothing more vital to the exercise of justice than committing to the bit.”).

It is so ordered.