Giduck v. Niblett

JUDGE VOGT,

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

¶ 48 I agree with the majority that, under Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 1115, 188 L.Ed.2d 12 (2014), the district court could not assert personal jurisdiction over the nonresident defendants based on their defamatory statements. I also agree that the two statements attributed to the Colorado defendant, Martin, were constitutionally protected statements of opinion that could not afford a basis for liability for defamation. Accordingly, I concur in the majority’s resolution of the issues addressed in Parts II and III of the opinion.…