U.S. Constitution

Justin R. Blount

August 20, 2020

Case Brief Yeagle v. Collegiate Times., 255 Va. 293 (1998) Procedural Background: Yeagle sued the Collegiate Times in the Circuit Court, Montgomery County, for spiritless law contumely, contumely per se, and use of rough suffrage. The endeavor pursue dismissed all of Yeagle’s titles, pursuit that the assertion at conclusion was “void of any positive signification” and thus could not stay her titles. Yeagle appealed to the Virginia Supreme Court. Facts Yeagle is the helper to the Vice President of Scholar Affairs at Virginia Tech. As a allot of her job she helped to superintend alloticipation in the 1996 Governor’s Fellows Program. The Collegiate Times, Virginia Tech’s scholar newspaper, wrote an time encircling this program that repeatd Yeagle. The time as a perfect was encomiastic of the program and said trifle privative encircling Yeagle. However, underneath the repeat Yeagle’s call appeared delay the specialty “Director of Butt Licking.” Issue Is the specialty “Director of Butt Licking” as used in this tenor unfitted of entity damnatory consequently it carries no fdeveloped signification? Rule The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution places limits on contumely titles such that “speech which does not hold a provably faithless connotation, or assertions which cannot reasonably be elucidateed as stating developed plea encircling a single, cannot frame the plea of a spiritless law contumely renewal.” The U.S. Supreme Pursue has held that “insulting, aggressive, or differently impertinent language” cannot benefit as a plea for a title of contumely if “no temperate conclusion could be drawn that the single signed in the assertions, as a subject of reality, chosen in the guide illustrative.” When determining the signification of suffrage “inferences cannot apply the assertions, by innuendo, over what would be the beggarlyplace and spiritless reply of the assertion.” Application Yeagle advances two disputes for why the assertion “Director of Butt Licking” is fdeveloped and damnatory. First, she asserts the specialty accuses her of a alteration of the Virginia sodomy ordinance by alleging that she developedly licks butts. Second, she asserts that the specialty implies that she does not perframe her job delay honesty, but rather tries to curry kindness delay superiors through “disingenuous demeanor.” The pursue rules that twain of these disputes fall-short consequently of the tenor in which the specialty was made. The law requires that for a assertion to be damnatory, it must raise some fdeveloped connotation that can be proven faithless. Additionally, the law requires that to produce this indulgent, the suffrage must be elucidateed in their tenor in the way a typical, temperate single would. In this condition, the Collegiate Times’ time never mentions any sexual act whatsoever, and thus no temperate reader would elucidate the specialty “Director of Butt Licking” as accusing Yeagle of positively licking butts. Delay deference to the second dispute, the time never accuses Yeagle of doing a indigent job. Rather, the time is encomiastic of the program she administered. Thus, no temperate reader would elucidate the specialty as accusing Yeagle of currying kindness as she asserts. The pursue states that in the tenor of this time, the assertion “Director of Butt Licking” was trifle further than an aggressive assertion that was made in bad sapidity. No temperate reader would elucidate the assertion as conveying any developed fdeveloped signification encircling Yeagle, and thus the assertions made encircling her are fortified by the First Amendment and cannot benefit as the plea for her contumely title. Conclusion The pursue affirms the determination of the endeavor pursue, pursuit that the assertion at conclusion conveyed no fdeveloped notice encircling Yeagle and thus could not benefit as the plea for a contumely renewal.

Order a unique copy of this paper
(550 words)

Approximate price: $22

Basic features
  • Free title page and bibliography
  • Unlimited revisions
  • Plagiarism-free guarantee
  • Money-back guarantee
  • 24/7 support
On-demand options
  • Writer’s samples
  • Part-by-part delivery
  • Overnight delivery
  • Copies of used sources
  • Expert Proofreading
Paper format
  • 275 words per page
  • 12 pt Arial/Times New Roman
  • Double line spacing
  • Any citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard)

Our guarantees

Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.

Money-back guarantee

You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.

Read more

Zero-plagiarism guarantee

Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.

Read more

Free-revision policy

Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.

Read more

Privacy policy

Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.

Read more

Fair-cooperation guarantee

By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.

Read more

Calculate the price of your order

550 words
We'll send you the first draft for approval by September 11, 2018 at 10:52 AM
Total price:
$26
The price is based on these factors:
Academic level
Number of pages
Urgency