Digital Media Law Project
Published on Digital Media Law Project (https://www.dmlp.org)

Home > Woody v. Carter

Woody v. Carter [1]

Submitted by DMLP Staff on Mon, 08/11/2008 - 18:48

Summary

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Date: 

05/01/2008

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Dismissed (total)

Location: 

Virginia

Verdict or Settlement Amount: 

N/A

Legal Claims: 

Conspiracy
Defamation
Tortious Interference
Roger Woody, a landowner and developer, sued four local bloggers in Virginia state court for tortious interference with contracts, conspiracy to harm his business, and "insulting words" (closely related to defamation) after they allegedly criticized him, his business, and at least one... read full description
Parties

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Terry Ellen Carter; Tacy L. Newell-Foutz; Meghan Dorsett; Carol Lindstrom

Type of Party: 

Individual

Type of Party: 

Individual

Location of Party: 

  • Virginia

Location of Party: 

  • Virginia

Legal Counsel: 

B.K. Cruey

Legal Counsel: 

Rebecca K. Glenberg; Jonathan Rogers (Carter); James Cowan (Lindstrom, Dorsett); Guy Harbert (Nouwell-Foutz)
Description

Roger Woody, a landowner and developer, sued four local bloggers in Virginia state court for tortious interference with contracts, conspiracy to harm his business, and "insulting words" (closely related to defamation) after they allegedly criticized him, his business, and at least one of his properties. According to the Roanoke Times [2], the lawsuit "accuses the defendants of injuring Woody's 'good name and reputation' in the past two years." Woody is seeking over $31 million in damages.

The dispute centers around a large pile of dirt on one of Woody's properties. According to a court document [3], two posts on the Think, Christiansburg! [4] blog, maintained by Terry Ellen Carter and  Tacy L. Newell-Foutz, expressed the view that the dirt pile was an eyesore, said that it should be removed, and dubbed it "Mt. Woody." Carter also had critized the pile when interviewed in a Roanoke Times article [5] and made T-shirts that included a photo of the pile with "Woodyville" superimposed over it. Woody's lawsuit claims that the defendants' actions have "cost numerous contracts for the sale of town houses and other properties" and that he will continue to lose sales in the future as a result of their actions.

In May 2008, Carter and Newell-Foutz filed a demurrer [3] asking the court to dismiss the case. The court held a hearing on the demurrer on July 31, 2008.

Dorsett and Lindstrom say they have no connection [6] to the Think, Christiansburg! blog. They have been dismissed from the case.

Update:

10/17/08 - According to one press report [7], the court granted Carter and Newell-Foutz's motion to dismiss, but gave Woody 21 days to amend his pleading.

10/31/08 - According to one of the defendants [8] in the case, the court order sustaining the demurrers was dated October 31, 2008. Woody has until January 31, 2009, ninety days from the court order, to file an appeal.

04/10/09 -  Woody's appeal was denied.

Related Links: 

  • Think, Christiansburg!: Junk(y) Yard Wars [9] (one of the disputed posts)
  • Roanoke Times: Christiansburg developer files suit over blog [2]
  • Roanoke Times: Mountain of dirt irritates neighbors [5]
  • Roanoke Times: Editorial: Don't speak ill of Roger Woody [10]
  • Roanoke Times: ACLU says lawsuit is groundless [6]
  • Terry Ellen Carter Legal Defense Fund [11]
  • ACLU of Virginia: ACLU Defends Christiansburg Citizen’s First Amendment Right to Criticize Developer [12]
  • Roanoke Times: Bloggers cleared in lawsuit [7]
Details

Web Site(s) Involved: 

Think, Christiansburg! [4]

Content Type: 

  • Photo
  • Text

Publication Medium: 

Blog

Subject Area: 

  • Defamation
  • Real Estate
Court Information & Documents

Jurisdiction: 

  • Virginia

Source of Law: 

  • Virginia

Court Name: 

Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Virginia

Court Type: 

State

Case Number: 

CL08003192-00

Relevant Documents: 

PDF icon 2008-05-23-Carter's Demurrer to Complaint.pdf [13]
CMLP Information (Private)

Priority: 

1-High

CMLP Notes: 

Source: E-mail from Carter forwarded by Robert Cox of the Media Bloggers Association

 

Comments

Woody v. Carter et al [14]

Submitted by Terry Ellen Carter on Fri, 01/09/2009 - 10:04

The plaintiff has notified defendants' attorneys that he plans to appeal the judges decision to sustain the demurrers (dismiss the case). Although the demurrers were sustained with leave to amend (he could correct his paper and submit again) the plaintiff chose to appeal with the original pleading.

The court order sustaining the demurrers was dated October 31, 2008. The plaintiff has yet to actually petition the court with the appeal. The petition deadline is January 31, 2009, ninety days from the court order.

It appears that the plaintiff's procedure is to wait until the bitter end of any period to file paperwork, so we can expect that nothing more will happen until the end of January 2009.

As a defendant in this case, I see that sort of delay as further harrassment. Of course that's an "opinion" not a fact.

Thank for you updating us on [15]

Submitted by David Ardia on Fri, 01/09/2009 - 10:21

Thank for you updating us on this case.  If the plaintiff does file a notice of appeal, please let us know.

Woody v. Carter et al [16]

Submitted by Terry Ellen Carter on Thu, 01/29/2009 - 12:02

Mr. Woody's attorney filed the petition to appeal with the Virginia Supreme Court on January 26, 2009. We are case number 090189. I'm reading a wonderful book called "The Collapse of the Common Good: How America's lawsuit culture undermines our freedom." Perhaps Woody v. Carter et al will be an example in the next edition.

This case [17]

Submitted by Mick Cody [18] on Tue, 02/03/2009 - 18:52

Doesn't the plaintiff need to clearly demonstrate a legally documented & factual loss of business? While I grasp the concept of hurt feelings when dealing with public criticism, a claim of such magnitude seems to demand proof equal to such a claim.

This smacks of a school yard fight, complete with dirt. I suspect had the protest even been restricted to solely the blog, it would still be at this stage. Which is patently an
" I'll show you," litigation and pathetic in the current state of the economy.

DMLP Logo


Source URL (modified on 08/20/2014 - 11:07pm): https://www.dmlp.org/threats/woody-v-carter?page=0

Links
[1] https://www.dmlp.org/threats/woody-v-carter
[2] http://www.roanoke.com/news/nrv/wb/160833
[3] https://www.dmlp.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2008-05-23-Carter%27s%20Demurrer%20to%20Complaint.pdf
[4] http://www.thinkchristiansburg.com/
[5] http://www.roanoke.com/news/nrv/wb/158718
[6] http://www.roanoke.com/news/nrv/wb/163116
[7] http://www.roanoke.com/news/nrv/wb/180490
[8] https://www.dmlp.org/threats/woody-v-carter#comment-1199
[9] http://www.thinkchristiansburg.com/confoundedinchristiansburg/junky-yard-wars.aspx
[10] http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/wb/160953
[11] http://www.terryellencarter.com/
[12] http://www.acluva.org/newsreleases2008/May23.html
[13] https://www.dmlp.org/sites/dmlp.org/files/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2008-05-23-Carter%27s%20Demurrer%20to%20Complaint.pdf
[14] https://www.dmlp.org/comment/1199#comment-1199
[15] https://www.dmlp.org/comment/1200#comment-1200
[16] https://www.dmlp.org/comment/1215#comment-1215
[17] https://www.dmlp.org/comment/1220#comment-1220
[18] http://jukeofurl.wordpress.com