Read the case and answer the questions that follow. Please explain your answers using the legal terms and explanations using are learning in this course.

Yeagle v. Collegiate Times[1]

Facts:Sharon Yeagle was the Assistant to the Vice President of Students Affairs and Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.One of Yeagle's duties was to help students apply to the Governor's Fellows Program.The school newspaper published an article describing the university's success in placing students and included a quote from Yeagle.Under Yeagle's name in the article was the phrase "Director of Butt Licking."

Yeagle sued the Collegiate Times for defamation and the trial court dismissed the case ruling that no reasonable person would take the words literally.Yeagle appealed.

Issue:Was the phrase defamatory, or was it a deliberate exaggeration that no reasonable person would take literally?

Holding:Judgment for Collegiate Times affirmed.The court held that the phrase was no more than rhetorical hyperbole. Although the phrase was disgusting, offensive, and in bad taste, it could not reasonably be understood as stating an actual fact about Yeagle's job title or her conduct, or that she committed a crime of moral turpitude. Yeagle's assertion that the phrase demonstrated a lack of integrity in the performance of her duties also failed. The phrase could not reasonably be considered as conveying factual information about Yeagle, thus it did not support a cause of action for defamation.

Question:Why didn't the district court allow Yeagle to present her case at trial?Wasn't she entitled to his day in court?

Question:Why does the court look at the phrase in the context in which it appeared, from the standpoint of the average reader?

Question:What was the context in which they appeared?

Question:Why is that important?

[1]255 Va. 293, 497 S.E.2d 136, 1998 Va. LEXIS 32, Virginia Supreme Court, 1998