## Facts

- Two anthropologists engaged in a long-running professional dispute about scholarship on the Huichol people of Mexico; the plaintiff publicly challenged the defendant’s published work.
- Over many years, the plaintiff alleged the defendant made disparaging statements about him to third parties, including comments such as that the plaintiff was “a lousy anthropologist,” “beset by devils,” and “pursuing a half-assed fantasy.”
- The defendant told a museum director (Dr. Bruce Bernstein) that the plaintiff was not qualified for a proposed museum project; Bernstein testified such criticism is common in academia and did not affect his opinion of the plaintiff.
- The plaintiff also alleged the defendant said the plaintiff’s Ph.D.-granting university “disowned” him and regretted awarding the degree.
- The plaintiff claimed the defendant interfered with a book contract by warning a publisher the book was libelous and threatening suit; the publisher withdrew, but the plaintiff later obtained another publisher for a revised version.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendant on all claims; the court of appeals reinstated limited defamation claims and the tortious interference claim; the state supreme court granted certiorari on the questions presented in the petition.

## Issues

1. Whether the remaining challenged statements were actionable defamatory assertions of fact, or instead nonactionable opinion, rhetorical hyperbole, or otherwise missing required defamation elements.
2. Whether the evidence created a triable issue that the defendant wrongfully caused loss of a contractual relationship (tortious interference with contract), or whether summary judgment was proper.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Mexico reversed the court of appeals to the extent it reinstated any defamation claims and the tortious interference claim.
- It held the district court properly granted summary judgment for the defendant on the remaining defamation allegations.
- It held summary judgment was also proper on the tortious interference with contract claim.
- The case was remanded for proceedings consistent with entry of summary judgment for the defendant.

## Legal Principles

- Defamation requires a statement reasonably understood as asserting provably false fact; loose, figurative, or hyperbolic language—especially in a polemical academic dispute—generally constitutes nonactionable opinion or rhetorical hyperbole.
- Context matters: evaluative academic criticism about competence or qualifications, when not framed as verifiable factual claims, is typically not actionable.
- A defamation plaintiff must present evidence permitting a reasonable jury to find reputational injury and causation; testimony that the audience was not influenced can negate a triable issue on harm.
- Characterizations such as an institution “disowning” a graduate may be treated as rhetorical expression rather than a precise factual report of institutional action.
- Tortious interference with contract requires proof of improper conduct (without justification) and causation of legally cognizable damages; warning of possible defamation liability and threatened litigation, without more, may be justified and not “improper.”
- Evidence that the plaintiff later secured an alternative publishing arrangement may undercut proof of causation and damages for interference.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that the challenged remarks were, in context, largely academic criticism and rhetorical disparagement rather than verifiable false factual assertions, and that the plaintiff failed to produce evidence of reputational or economic harm and wrongful causation sufficient to reach a jury; summary judgment for the defendant on defamation and tortious interference was therefore required.


Fikes v. Furst, 81 P.3d 545 (N.M. 2003)