Tustin University

Tustin University is a public, liberal arts university. It has two campuses: the Main Campus located in Tustin, Huntington, Huntington-and the Bonnabel Campus located in Bonnabel, Huntington, Huntington.

Main Campus
The Tustin University - Main Campus is known for its studies in Environmental and Computer Science and Engineering.

Ratings/Numbers

 * #1 L'Chaim Frat/Sorority Life
 * All organizations represented
 * Top Rated in Computer Science
 * Top Rated in Engineering
 * Top Rated in Party Life

Bonnabel Campus
The Tustin University - Bonnabel Campus is known for its liberal arts studies. It is much smaller than the Main Campus, however still shares athletics and other features of Tustin University.

Huntington Target Department Stores v Pei Yad Tav Lamed Social Fraternity Organization of Tustin University
In a landmark Supreme Court case, the Supreme Court of the nation of Huntington found that "all forms of false advertising, whether that be direct, indirect, or in some other manner, is unconstitutional."

Background Information
Pei Yad Tav Lamed (a social fraternity organization) of Tustin University began claiming to be sponsored by local Huntington (district) Target department stores. They then began to "false advertise," claiming that illegal drugs and substances would be arriving in the nearest Target soon. The Huntington Target department stores filed suit against Pei Yad Tav Lamed of Tustin University, claiming the brothers of the fraternity had "intent covered in malice to false advertise."

Decision
Being the first ever Supreme Court case in the nation of Huntington based around false advertising, the Court went farther than to simply answer the base question at hand. To start, the Court ruled in favor of Huntington Target Department Stores. Justices found that the brothers of Pei Yad Tav Lamed social fraternity of Tustin University had "complete and utter malice" when false advertising about drugs and other substances coming to the local Target. With this, they also noted that although it was clear to be a joke amongst the fraternity, the joke had begun to spread into public eye, and the continuation of the joke gave a "genuine feeling that the stores would shelve drugs and other substances" amongst locals. On top of that, the Court also defined "false advertising," saying that it was "claiming false information about a company or institution with malicious intent, having either tangible or intangible detrimental effects." They found that the local Target's tangible effects of increased graffiti and lower stock and profits within the area, as well as the intangible effects of the widespread word of mouth defined this case under false advertising. Lastly, the Court famously said that "all forms of false advertising, whether that be direct, indirect, or in some other manner, is unconstitutional."