However, the Sixth Circuit pointed out a crucial distinction. In the current case, Griffin’s actions directly targeted Tennessee, making jurisdiction more applicable. Griffin directly communicated with VisuWell and pushed for Johnson’s removal from the company’s board, actively facilitating her followers’ involvement in the controversy.
The First Amendment and Jurisdiction
The panel asserted that when a single act has two consequences, one related to jurisdiction and the other facilitating free speech, the First Amendment does not impact the jurisdictional determination. This unique legal perspective adds a layer of complexity to the case.
The Future of the Case
Notably, the panel declined to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim, leaving room for further legal scrutiny by the lower court.
Kathy Griffin Defamation Suit : Concurring Opinion
Circuit Judge R. Guy Cole Jr. penned a separate concurring opinion, delving into the legal framework applicable in the context of social media. He emphasized that Griffin had purposefully availed herself of the privilege of causing action in Tennessee, solidifying the connection between her actions and the state.
Kathy Griffin Defamation Suit : The Silent Parties
Representatives for the Johnsons and Griffin have not provided immediate comments on the recent reversal. The legal battle promises to continue as the case progresses.
Legal Powerhouses
The Johnsons are represented by Todd V. McMurtry and Will Huber of Hemmer Wessels McMurtry PLLC, along with Lyndsay C. Smith of Smith PLC. Griffin’s legal team is comprised of Michael J. Grygiel, Cynthia E. Neidl, and Adam Siegler of Greenberg Traurig LLP, along with Robb S. Harvey of Holland & Knight LLP.
