Gott v. Berea College
Kentucky Court of Appeals
161 S.W. 204 (1913)
Facts
In September of 1911, Gott (plaintiff) purchased a restaurant located across the street from Berea College (defendant). Berea College was a private college, supported entirely by private donations and its endowment, that enrolled and educated students of limited means. The college enacted rules and regulations for its student body, including a rule that prohibited students from visiting places of “ill refute, liquor saloons, gambling houses, etc.” In the summer of 1911, the college, in accordance with its charter, modified its rules and regulations to prohibit students from visiting “eating at houses and places of amusement….not controlled by the [c]ollege.” The college enacted this rule because its students came from rural areas and were from poor families, and certain rules were necessary in order to prevent students from wasting money and keep them focused on their education. Due to its location, Gott’s restaurant’s mostly served students from the college. Once the college enacted the rule against visiting restaurants, Gott’s restaurant lost a significant amount of business. Gott filed a lawsuit against the college, alleging that the college’s administration had conspired against him in enacting the rule and had slandered him. The trial court dismissed Gott’s case, and Gott appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Nunn, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 709,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,500 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
