Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below:
PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from
The Understanding Law Video Lecture Series™:
Choose Your Subscription:
--OR--
Register and Subscribe Now
Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below:
PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from
The Understanding Law Video Lecture Series™:
Choose Your Subscription:
--OR--
Brief Fact Summary.
Detmold Publishing Company sued the Environmental Planning and Information Council of Western El Dorado County, Inc. (EPIC) after EPIC published a newsletter criticizing the Foothill Times.
Synopsis of Rule of Law.
A party cannot be held liable for intentional interference with potential economic advantage of another if they organized a boycott for the secondary consumers directed at political objectives.
The right of the States to regulate economic activity could not justify a complete prohibition against a nonviolent, politically motivated boycott designed to force governmental and economic change and to effectuate rights guaranteed by the Constitution itself.
View Full Point of Law
Environmental Planning and Information Council of Western El Dorado County, Inc. (EPIC) published a newsletter criticizing the Foothill Times and urged EPIC readers not to support businesses who sponsored the Foothill Times until they changed their editorial policies. Detmold Publishing Company (Detmold), the publisher of the Foothill Times, sued EPIC for intentional interference with the prospective economic advantage of another. EPIC filed a motion to dismiss and it was denied by the superior court.
Issue.
Whether a party can be held liable for intentional interference with potential economic advantage of another if they organized a boycott for the secondary consumers directed at political objectives?
Held.
No. The superior court is directed to enter an order granting the motion. There was no economic relationship between Detmold and EPIC in order to support a claim for intentional interference with potential economic advantage of another. Similarly, EPIC’s actions were lawful expressions of speech under the first amendment.
Discussion.
A party cannot be held liable for intentional interference with potential economic advantage of another if they organized a boycott for the secondary consumers directed at political objectives.