Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Life Designs Ranch, Inc. v. Michael Sommer

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided November 12, 2015No. 32922-4-IIIPublished

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partFearing, J.

¶40 — I conclude that plaintiff Life Designs Ranch Inc. presents sufficient facts to survive a summary judgment motion on its claims of defamation and tortious interference with business expectancy. Thus, I, in part, respectfully dissent from the majority. I concur with the majority’s ruling that Life Designs may not recover against Michael Sommer because of a hyperlink on his website to another site critical of Life Designs. I also concur that Life Designs and Vincent and Bobbie Barranco cannot recover in false light.

¶41 The majority commits three fundamental errors that lead to my partial…

2Cases cited73 opinions

  1. New York Times Co. v. SullivanSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  2. Herbert v. LandoSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  3. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
  4. Hartley v. StateWashington Supreme Court · 1985
  5. Leingang v. PIERCE CO. MED. BUREAU, INC.Washington Supreme Court · 1997

68 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API