Court of Petty Appeals: Administration v. 1Ls
Administration
v.
1Ls
79 U. Va. 1 (2026)
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.
What has risen to the attention of this heretofore silent Court, at least during the lux aestivalis in which the court is typically silent, similar to in “its vacation during the lux brumalis,” is a case of proportions most preposterous and postposterous and of a precedential potential unmatched since those decisions of the potentates of old. Justices of COPA v. Public Interest Law Association (PILA) and PILA Auction Winner U. Va. 14 (2026). The case at hand has been brought by the administration of the Law School on the theory that the 1L defendants as a class are already behind and are going to negligently injure the reputation of the school in the future. Minority Report, Paramount+ (20th Century Fox 2002). The plaintiffs allege that the 1Ls did not start recruiting earlier this summer, placing them behind the competition and reflecting poorly on the school. The plaintiffs additionally allege that the 1Ls will likely forswear classes on the basis that they have already neglected recruiting as mentioned earlier. Administration v. 1Ls, 79 U. Va. 1 (2026).
The defendants have countersued that rather than them damaging the reputation of the school, the school has in fact not suffered damage and indeed has caused the 1Ls to geþolian sceal þinga ǽghwylces (“forfeit everything” in what passes for modern parlance) in the sphere of their recruiting and classwork. They recognized that the loss of their lives outside school were already as forfeit as was that of Robert Moses. Robert Caro, The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York 807 (Robert Gottlieb ed. 1975).
Jurisdiction
As for the jurisdiction of the initial claim, the Court must first onfindaþ which is the initial claim. The Court appears more likely to resemble the “Red Team moving forward” through time than the Blue Team moving backwards through time; thus, the initial claim is that which has been claimed by the Administration unto the 1Ls. Tenet, Apple TV+ (Warner Brothers 2020). Pincer movements, of the temporal but not necessarily the normal variety, aside, the Court “arguably [has] personal jurisdiction over everyone,” and the Court declines to argue against its own Rules. Petty Rules of Civil Procedure § 12 Comment.
Having deciphered the order of claimage and asserted jurisdiction over the first forthwith, the Court then considers the latter of the claims–that is, the counter-claim by the defendants who, under the counter-claim, could be considered plaintiffs with claims against the defendants, who had previously been considered the plaintiffs in the pre-counter-claim claim. For the sake of the reporters of the Court and the intrepid ones of the Virginia Law Weekly, the Court will henceforth name the plaintiffs from the original claim as “the plaintiffs” and the defendants from the original, that is the initial, claim as “the defendants,” even during the discourse of the counter-claim in which the parties could otherwise seem to be reversed. Having elucidated the nomenclature to a level of clarity unseen since, or frankly even at the time of “Old Brother Methuselah[’s] spectacles,” the Court may, and indeed will, next move onto the question of its jurisdiction over this counter-claim. Brian Jacques, Redwall 36–37 (2002). For the question of this counter-claim jurisdiction, the parties “cannot make [the Court] go back into my CivPro notes and read about this,” so instead the Court will follow the Gordian precedent of the same and let it proceed under the rule “do[ing] what we want.” Petty Rules of Civil Procedure § 16 Comment; Jonathan Doe v. Benvin Lozada 78 U. Va 5 (2025); Petty Rules of Civil Procedure § 1.
Initial Claim
The plaintiffs, per the aforementioned clarification of nomenclature, have alleged that the defendants negligently damaged the reputation of the school. Ordinarily, the Court would follow the Petty Rules of Civil Procedure, which state, “1Ls always lose unless it is funnier for them to win.” Petty Rules of Civil Procedure § 2. However, to do so in so simple a manner would be unbecoming of a Court known for the depth of its analysis and the high quality of its legal legerdemain. See 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 U. Va 14 (2026); Morris, Chandler v. National Collegiate Athletic Association 78 U. Va 21 (2026). Instead of twisting the interpretation of “1Ls always lose,” to somehow construe a rule that the 1Ls should always lose, the Court seeks to follow the example of Constantine and Licinius in their edict, and to “carefully explain every ambiguous word, remove every exception, and exact from the governors of the provinces a strict obedience to the true and simple meaning of an edict.” Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: Volume II 311 (First AMS ed. 1974).
In its quest to find this “true and simple meaning,” much as in Dickie Bow’s “interrupted journey,” the Court is dissevered from its course by another of the rules which govern the same, that is, that “[i]f [a party is] rude, the Court may favor the opposing party in interpreting and applying these Rules.” Id.; Mick Herron, Dead Lions 3 (2013); Petty Rules of Civil Procedure § 14(a). To ascertain the applicability of the Rule of applicability, the Court must ascertain the definition of the operative term, “rude,” and, finding no definition of the same, turns instead to its literary cousin, “rudeness,” which is defined as “[r]oughness; incivility; violence.” Id.; Rudeness, Black’s Law Dictionary (6th ed. 1991). The Court finds the same has been charged “sky-high tuition” by the plaintiffs, which qualifies as uncivil at a minimum and likely rough, to say nothing of violent. Jason Vanger, A Modest Proposal to Address Tuition, Virginia Law Weekly, Apr. 1, 2026. Thus, the Administration is hereby found as rude, and therefore deserving of the interpretation of the Rules relevant to its case being done in a light towards favoring the opposing party, that is, the defendant 1L class. Therefore, rather than the 1Ls losing, the Court hereby finds the plain meaning of “1Ls always lose” to hereby mean that the 1Ls defend successfully against the wanton and wanting allegations of the plaintiffs.
Counter-Claim
Having disposed of the initial claim with a speed unrivaled by all but the famed run of Ebrington of 1909, the Court next addresses the counter-claim. A.J.G. Priest, Old Hilarity 30 (1965). The defendants have alleged that they have suffered damage in terms of an inability to recruit and attend class effectively as a result of the draconian and micromanaging impositions imposed by the plaintiffs. The ironically named Qwickly, the interminability of setting up school accounts (including for the University, the School of Law, digital certificates, Exam4, and others of even more dubious value), and the School’s other bureaucratic burdens were submitted successfully as evidence of the School pre-emptively filling the schedules of 1Ls and preventing them from studying or recruiting.
The Court finds that the damages claimed by the defendants are of a providence nearly as questionable as that of the basketball team of the same name of 2004–05 (any sporting team with a winning percentage of 0.36% being inherently questionable of course). Providence Friars Women's Basketball School History, https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/schools/providence/women/ (last visited Aug. 23, 2026). The Court finds the lost value of recruiting and studying inexact, but grants relief to the defendants under the alternative theory that this lost time may prevent them from reading the opinions of this very Court and thereby receiving a proper legal education.
As a result, the parties are hereby ordered as follows:
The plaintiffs shall (a) remove the Qwickly technology from the classroom, (b) cancel the testing contract with Exam4, and (c) consolidate the IT systems to use but one account (or better yet, revert back to tried and true paper records).
The defendants shall read and reread all opinions of the Court of Petty Appeals until they understand “any [and all] Easter Eggs in there [they] didn’t get the first time.” Succession: Safe Room (HBO 2019).