OCR Text |
Show Adverse dog pound publicity case goes back to court Eight Uintah County residents get a chance to convince a jury that a media campaign six years ago publicizing conditions at the county dog pound damaged their business. The Utah Supreme court has reversed a ruling by 4th District Judge David Sam and ordered that the eight people get a chance to present evidence on their theory that the Humane Society of Utah intentionally interfered with their business. The problem arose in 1971. according to Chief Justice Gordon R. Hall, who wrote the opinion, when Lonnie Johnson and the society became concerned con-cerned about conditions at the dog pound operated by the county and Vernal City. In 1976. Johnson began a media campaign to put pressure on government govern-ment officials to make improvements at the pound. Part of the campaign included an effort to discourage tourists from visiting the county until changes were made at the pound. Woodey B, Vonetta. Randy B.. Vickie. Ranee W., Gail, Rhett A., and Tony Searle, operators of Diamond Hills Motel. Cafe and Gift Shop in Vernal, filed the suit against Johnson and the society claiming the media campaign caused business to decrease. Hall said Sam didn't address the question of whether intentional intentio-nal interference with a business is a valid cause in Utah or what elements such a tort might include. Rather. Sam determined that the Searles were prevented from recovery against the society because the society's activities were protected by the right to petitions under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Hall said the society's attempt to intentionally force the Searles to support the society's position is not protected by the First Amendment. If the Searles can prove that the society intended to injure the business to coerce them to join the society's position, the plaintiffs should be allowed to present their novel theory in court. Hall said. However, if the Searles suffered as an incidental result of the publicity campaign, the society's First Amendment Amend-ment rights would be protected, the opinion said. |