Skip to content

4 Catt. 2: In re 1st Yellow Vendor

2011 December 14

CATTLEYA, J., delivered the opinion of the Cart. JEREMY, C.J., delivered a separate opinion, concurring in part and in the result.

In an earlier opinion of this Cart, we noted that Yellow Vendor was another food truck within our jurisdiction that served traditional Korean fare. See In re AZNeats, 2 Catt. 3 (2011). We left open the following question: does AZNeats or Yellow Vendor dish out a superior galbi?

Before we answer that question, we note that AZNeats says “kalbi” while Yellow Vendor says “galbi.” Both spelling variations of the marinated beef are acceptable. We will use “galbi” in this opinion. This is an arbitrary spelling choice that does not reflect the choosing of sides at this preliminary stage.

1st Yellow Vendor

To refresh the reader’s mind, we start by summarizing our conclusions on AZNeats’s kalbi. The meat was good, although we noted that “nothing beats kalbi off the bone.” AZNeats, 2 Catt. 3. The rice was nice and sticky (a bit overcooked, but not enough to detract from the meal). Id. The dish was topped off with a healthy collection of vegetables. Id. And a side of pickle slices provided acidity to balance the drizzle of sweet sauce. Id. Overall, we highly enjoyed our dining experience with AZNeats.

We now turn to Yellow Vendor (“YV”). YV operates two trucks—the first truck (Yellow Vendor) and the second truck that’s called the first truck (1st Yellow Vendor). We visited the second truck.

YV’s galbi has proved this Supreme Cart wrong. We previously stated that “nothing beats kalbi off the bone.” AZNeats, 2 Catt. 3. Well, there is something that beats it: galbi off the bone, off a truck. We were so impressed that YV served galbi off the bone that the Cart’s first draft of this opinion looked like this: “Galbi served off the bone. Nothing else needs to be said on the matter.”

Although the galbi alone was enough to win over the Justices of this Cart, the supporting food elements matched the high-quality of the galbi. The devoted reader knows by now how I like my white rice: sticky but still chewy. See In re Seoul Food, 3 Catt. 1 (2011). That is exactly what YV scooped into my Styrofoam container. Moreover, YV’s kimchi was the real deal, meaning that it was fermented and not simply vinegared. Cf. In re Takorean, 1 Catt. 4 (2011). Although the side of lettuce was unnecessary, we still ate it.


So the question must be answered: AZNeats or Yellow Vendor? Here’s how the individual components of their respective dishes compared:

  • Kalbi/galbi: YV had a slight edge for its galbi off the bone, even though AZNeats’s kalbi was a bit tastier.
  • White rice: YV’s chewier rice came out ahead of AZNeats’s softer rice.
  • Vegetables: AZNeats’s broccoli, cauliflower, baby carrots, and yellow pickled radish beat YV’s plain lettuce.
  • Garnishes: YV’s traditional kimchi defeated AZNeats’s pickle slices, although the pickles were an imaginative addition.
  • Price: YV and AZNeats tied in this category, as their dishes were both priced at $8.

Bottom Line: If forced to choose, the Justices of the Cart would line up in front of Yellow Vendor. But the Justices hope never to choose. We would like to eat kalbi/galbi twice a week (at least)—once at Yellow Vendor and once at AZNeats.


*Erratum. It appears that Yellow Vendor and 1st Yellow Vendor are two separate, unaffiliated food trucks. On November 7, 2011, Yellow Vendor tweeted that “Yellowvendor and 1stYellowvendor is [sic] totally different.” References in this opinion to “Yellow Vendor” and “YV” refer to 1st Yellow Vendor, and not Yellow Vendor.

JEREMY, C.J., concurring in part and in the result.

Firstly, my sister marvels at the non-distinction between “kalbi” and “galbi.” I won’t bore her (or you, dear reader) with the intricacies of Korean phonology.

Secondly, I wish to reiterate that YV sported a perfect flanken cut. (I adore the word and delight in its significance.)

Thirdly, while I concur with my fellow Justice’s consideration of YV’s preparation, I object to an adversarial opinion in the guise of a non-adversarial one. My sister should not continue to so flaunt the dictates of due process. There is a time and a place for an adversarial proceeding, but there are notice and hearing requirements, lacking in this case, which must first be adhered to. For this reason, I concur in the result of my sister’s decision, and in her findings as to YV, but find myself forbidden by my duties as Chief Justice of this Supreme Cart from joining in her comparisons with AZNeats.

Comments are closed.