Gott v . Berea College To meet Wikipedia 's quality standards , this article or section may require cleanup . Please discuss this issue on the talk page , or replace this tag with a more specific message . Editing help is available . This article has been tagged since September 2005 . Gott v . Berea College , 156 Ky. 376 ( 1913 , Court of Appeals of Kentucky ) Facts : A restaurant owned by Gott in Berea across from Berea College was frequented by students of the college . The college amended its rules to forbid the patronage by students of establishments not owned by the college . The penalty for doing so was dismissal from the college . Several students who visited Gott’s restaurant were subsequently dismissed and the number and frequency of student customers diminished considerably subsequent to the dismissals . Gott filed suit against Berea College for an injunction to stop enforcement of the new rule as well as for damages . Issue : Was the rule forbidding students from patronizing eating establishments not associated with Berea College a reasonable one and did Berea College have the authority to create and enforce the rule . Did Gott actually have a lawful complaint or were Berea College’s actions lawful and performed in a proper manner ? Answer : The court acknowledged that Gott’s business had been much reduced after the rule was effected but the question was whether the college’s actions were unlawful . The court first determined that because Berea College was acting in loco parentis , the college did have the authority to issue the rule and that students at the college were obligated to conform their behavior to the rule since a “ ... college or university may prescribe requirements for admission and rules for the conduct of its students , and one who enters as a student impliedly agrees to conform to such rules of government.” The court noted that a public institution , one supported “from the public treasure” had more exacting criteria to meet but since Berea College was a private institution , the above implied contract between student and college was sufficient . Next the court reviewed the relationship between Gott and Berea College to determine if there was a contractual relationship which the college had broken but found none . Finally , the court reviewed the question of unreasonable , malicious , or wrongful restraint of trade by the actions of the college but could find no evidence of such . Categories : Cleanup from September 2005 | United States education case law September 2005 