Court of Petty Appeals: National Association for Equine Equality (NAEE) v. Foxfield
National Association for Equine Equality (NAEE)
v.
Foxfield
79 U. Va. 6 (2026)
Complaint, submitted by Hortense H. Hoofington V, Esq.
For too long, the great horses of Virginia and beyond have been oppressed by humanity and its lack thereof. Foxfield represents the worst nadir of horse-human relations since the abomination of the Washington incident. We horses are a majestic, respectful, and litigious species, not some mere species to be objectified and put through literal hoops and hurdles. Foxfield has violated our inherent Epona- and Rhiannon-given rights to freedom and liberty. Instead of cantering and trotting around as we please, we have been subjected to imprisonment despite no charges being proven in a court of law or even filed, for that matter. We seek the following damages:
The event known as Foxfield must cease and desist from imprisoning and enslaving horses for human amusement.
To compensate for the years of horse suffering at Foxfield, the humans must race around North Grounds and provide us with capacious bags of apples and sugar cubes to nosh on whilst the humans race for our amusement.
The phrase “beating a dead horse” must be banned forthwith; despite the great aid we horses provided to your American revolutionaries, the Founding Fathers declined to consult us on the Constitution-writing process, so we do not recognize your Bill of Rights. Give us freedom, and then we can whinny about freedom of speech.
The major Detroit auto manufacturers must cease and desist in their production of motor vehicles. The great E.M. Frimbo was right in castigating these infernal combustion engines, even if he did not elucidate the catastrophic impact these had on the horse economy and the millions of good American horse jobs they destroyed.
Equal civil, political, and social rights compared to American humans.
We have already thrown a jockey at Foxfield and shall be forced to further acts of rebellion if these damages are not provided posthaste.
Amicus Curiae Brief, submitted by Fyodor Fox XIV
We foxes share and support our horse brethren in their quest for rights. One day we hope they remember our support and support us when a fox figure with the gravitas and stature of the great Hortense H. Hoofington V, Esq. arrives and leads us to our own liberation.
Amicus Curiae Brief, submitted by Virginia Environmental Law Forum (VELF)
The VELVES stand with the animals and propose additional damages whereby the defendant must fund the founding of a Horse Law School. The VELVES would be very interested in taking Horse Law coursework.
Amicus Curiae Brief, submitted by North Grounds Track Club (NGTC)
The horses are welcome to watch us walk and run around North Grounds and Main Grounds every Thursday evening, though we have no budget for apples and sugar cubes.
Response, submitted by respondent Foxfield
Whut?
Moore, J., delivers the opinion of the Court, in which Berklich and Wu, C.J.J., and Vanger, Lawson, Boatright, Lozada, and Koeppel, J.J. join.
Moore, J., delivers the opinion of the Court.
A matter of a great deal of gravity having hereby arrived at its denouement, that is, barring an unlikely appeal to a God not recognized by the plaintiffs, it is incumbent upon the instant court to adjudge it with the required gravitas as did Dr. Stone. Petty Rules of Civil Procedure § 6; Gravity, Warner Bros. Pictures (2013).
Jurisdiction
At first issue, the brother of the court’s brother, that is, the a-writing judge of the same, must onfindaþ a foundation of jurisdiction of such sturdiness to support the ability of the same to adjudicate in the present, now past for readers, instance. The court has previously both heard and issued judgment upon similar cases involving our four-legged companions of the rodentiary variety. Gym Rats of UVA Law v. UVA Rec 78 U. Va 19 (2026) (an opinion of much note); Albino Squirrel v. UVA Football Fans 78 U. Va 7 (2025) (a matter concerning the interpretation of a noteworthy precedent); Rat King et al. v. The Commonwealth of Virginia 77 U. Va 22 (2025) (the aforementioned noteworthy precedent); Mouse v. MICE 77 U. Va 15 (2025) (another precedent worth noting).
However, the defendant has raised not one but two “[y]es, . . . two” counterarguments against this jurisdictional adjudicating. First, or second if one were to read from bottom to top and right to left, the defendant asks, “Whut [is the valid connection between rat law and horse law]?” Sesame Street: Season 17 (1985) (in which the Count von Count establishes the providence of the integer betwixt one and three). Secondly, or firstly (see the same vice versa or verce visa as above or below), the defendant claims that the plaintiff, in not recognizing the United States Constitution, has thereby placed its ability to lodge suit in a status of forfeit.
The first query presents a catastrophe, and perhaps a calamity, of a lack of attention to precedent. A simple review of the root of the placental mammal phylogeny clearly reveals both “Euarchontoglires (e.g., primates and rodents) and Laurasiatheria (e.g., carnivores and ruminants), while also consistently supporting the monophyly of the latter two groups into a clade known as Boreoeutheria.” See William J. Murphy, Thomas H. Pringle, Tess A. Crider, Mark S. Springer, and Webb Miller, Using genomic data to unravel the root of the placental mammal phylogeny, 17 (4) Genome Research 413-421 (2007). The rodentiary precedent is therefore applicable as a demonstration of the extensive jurisdiction of the Court, and the defendant is remanded to a remedial biology education.
Secondly, whilst the plaintiff has sought to cognize a lack of recognition for the Constitution, the Court here is neither limited by the Constitution nor views the aside of the complaint as prevailing upon the jurisdiction of the same.
Claim
Much as the great friend of the court of yesteryear E.M. Frimbo was too a friend of the Boroeutherians and sought to understand them despite their inability to speak English, so the Court seeks to do the same. Rogers E.M. Whitaker and Tony Hiss, All Aboard with E.M. Frimbo: World’s Greatest Railroad Buff 193 (1997). To decipher the instant case, the first metaphorical step must inevitably and indubitably be to peruse the Petty Rules of Civil Procedure, hopefully with superior results to the perusal of the records of London by Hunt in 2015. Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation, Paramount Pictures (2015). While initially the same alighted upon Rule 2, that is, that “1Ls always lose,” without a proper determination of fact that the crowd of attendees at the Foxfield event included or was composed of a majority of 1Ls, it is impossible to properly apply it in keeping with the high standards to which the brotherly brethren of the court hold themselves. See Petty Rules of Civil Procedure § 2, Jonathan Doe v. Benvin Lozada 78 U. Va 5 (2025), the dissent to Albino Squirrel v. UVA Football Fans 78 U. Va 7 (2025), Justices of COPA v. Public Interest Law Association (PILA) and PILA Auction Winner 78 U. Va 14 (2026), Administration v. 1Ls 79 U. Va 1 (2026), the concurrence and dissent to Koeppel, J. v. Beau Pribula 79 U. Va 3 (2026), the concurrence to United State v Cig Pro 79 U. Va 5 (2026), et cetera.
That said, in light of the failure of Rule 2, Rule 3 dictates that, “[t]he funniest outcome must necessarily prevail.” See Petty Rules of Civil Procedure § 3. Due to this requirement, the declaration of the plaintiff regarding the loss of American horse jobs to automobiles is persuasive. In fact, the prior status of horses was essential to the humor of yesteryear and today. See A.J.G. Priest, Old Hilarity 17 (1965) (“Mr. Speaker! Message from the Governor! Message from the Governor! Just been brought in by a . . . on horseback”), Succession: Chiantishire (HBO 2021) (“Life’s not knights on horseback. It’s a number on a piece of paper. It’s a fight for a knife in the mud”).
The Court therefore decides for the plaintiff.
Koeppel, J., concurring in judgment:
My learned brother, Justice Moore, insofar as entertaining this preposterous claim of equine job loss, which he attributes to the engine of human progress, fails to engage with the most troubling of indignities imposed by the dreaded event known as Foxfield.
The foxes were not in the field.
Crowds from all corners of tellus descend upon the meadows of Albemarle County under the misguided impression that they will bear witness to the majesty of this wily pirate and hostem humani generis. See Pierson v. Post, 3 Cai. R. 175 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1805). But instead we witness the equine species galavanting in a circle.
This court shirks its duty to protect consumers from predatory horse-raising syndicates, preying on the public’s deep-seated desire to witness foxes in the field.