Gott believed that the college and its officers had purposely acted unlawfully to injure his business and reputation by enforcing their new policy.
[1] So, on Sep. 20th, Gott would file suit against the college, obtaining an injunction to enjoin enforcement of the rule and initially seeking $500 in damages.
[1] The court acknowledged that Gott's business had been greatly injured after the rule was effected, but the question was whether the college's actions were unlawful and unreasonable.
First, the court reviewed the question of unreasonable, malicious, or wrongful restraint of trade by the actions of the college.
Determined that Berea College was not liable for any of the damages done to Gott's business considering they had made a lawful act in the proper manner.
Berea had proven themselves not liable for any of it and acting in a completely lawful and reasonable manner in line with in loco parentis.
In loco parentis doctrines would stand strong as private and public education's defense for any rules or regulations that would be challenged by students and outside agents.