Courtney Love breaks down in court over Nirvana’s legacy

Courtney Love broke down in tears in court earlier today (January 22), upon hearing businessman Phillip Gross discuss Nirvana's legacy. Love is currently appearing in court to defend an allegedly defamatory tweet she wrote in 2010. Love is being pursued by Rhonda Holmes, a lawyer she hired previously to handle a fraud case against those managing the estate of her late husband Kurt Cobain.

Trending Now

Send us your questions for Peter Murphy

The Bauhaus frontman will field your enquiries in a future issue of Uncut

Introducing the new issue of Uncut

GETTING YOUR COPY OF THIS MONTH'S UNCUT DELIVERED STRAIGHT TO YOUR DOOR IS EASY AND HASSLE FREE - CLICK...

The 3rd Uncut New Music Playlist Of 2021

Ryley Walker, Rose City Band, Hand Habits, Esther Rose, Richard Barbieri and more

Introducing the Deluxe Ultimate Music Guide to Bob Marley

In-depths reviews and archive encounters with the reggae legend

Courtney Love broke down in tears in court earlier today (January 22), upon hearing businessman Phillip Gross discuss Nirvana’s legacy.

Love is currently appearing in court to defend an allegedly defamatory tweet she wrote in 2010. Love is being pursued by Rhonda Holmes, a lawyer she hired previously to handle a fraud case against those managing the estate of her late husband Kurt Cobain.

On what is the fourth day of the case, Love began to cry when Gross discussed another lawsuit that he had bought up against a guitar tech who claimed to have a large collection of Nirvana frontman Kurt Cobain’s guitars, reports Spin. Spin writes that Love “covered her face with her hands, audibly gasped, and began to sob”.

Holmes is suing Love over a 2010 tweet that read in part: “I was fucking devestated [sic] when Rhonda J. Holmes esq. of san diego was bought off.” She is also facing claims in relation to a follow-up interview she gave after sending the tweet.

It is the first time a celebrity has been called to defend an allegedly defamatory tweet in a US courtroom. The jury must first decide whether Love’s Twitter followers would have reasonably understood the statement to have been about Holmes and her law firm. It must also decide whether Love intended to send the tweet, which she claims was meant to be a direct message, but was accidentally made public. If she pursues this defense, wider questions will be asked about her general behavior.

Finally, if Holmes is successful in her legal action by showing the tweet was reasonably understood to communicate an untruth about the lawyer taking a bribe, the court must decide on the amount of damages to be awarded to her.

The case continues today [January 23].


Advertisement

Latest Issue

The Who, New York Dolls, Fugazi, Peggy Seeger, Scritti Politti, Bob Dylan, Marvin Gaye, Serge Gainsbourg, Israel Nash and Valerie June
Advertisement

Features

Advertisement