The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Detmold (P) sued D and several of its officers. D published a newsletter criticizing P's editorial policies on environmental matters and calling upon readers of the newsletter not to patronize businesses that advertise in P's newspapers. P sued D for intentional interference with economic relationship and libel. P sought injunctive relief and both punitive and compensatory damages. D's newsletter stated in part: 'The western county areas are flooded by the Foothill Times, a newspaper that doesn't deserve to be called one. This is the rag that played a major role in last November's election of George Gribkoff and John Smith. Since then it has continued to ignore established facts, print inaccuracies, and blatantly editorialize in its 'news' articles.' D then urged its readers: 'What about contacting businesses advertising in the Foothill Times and requesting that they discontinue that advertising? Freedom of speech is one thing; vicious, irresponsible journalism is another, and perhaps you would prefer not to patronize businesses that advertise in such a publication.' D also attached to the two-page newsletter was a list of eighty nonclassified advertisers in two issues of the weekly newspaper. At the top of the list, the newsletter cautioned, 'This is not a blacklist! No condemnation of these businesses is implied! This list is merely for your convenience should you wish to contact Foothill Times advertisers.' D eventually moved for a summary judgment to protect D's First Amendment Constitutional rights. Ds claimed they never actually organized a boycott, that even if they had, such an act was privileged. The court granted a preliminary injunction barring D from 'interfering or inducing others to interfere' with P's contractual relationships with its advertisers or customers. D sought 'reconsideration and clarification' of the injunction and the court dissolved the injunction. D's motion for summary judgment was denied. D then sought a writ of mandate and/or prohibition commanding the court to set aside the order denying the motion for summary judgment. The Court of Appeal denied the petition and this court granted a hearing and issued an alternative writ to consider the questions thus posed.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.