green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
4.9 score
“noerr holds the antitrust laws are not intended to regulate genuine efforts to secure governmental action. that efforts were genuine is manifested by their success.”
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1983
2004
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 19 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Independence Public Media of Philadelphia, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Television Network Commission
noerr holds the antitrust laws are not intended to regulate genuine efforts to secure governmental action. that efforts were genuine is manifested by their success.
discussed
Cited "see"
Fudge v. Alliant Foodservice, No. Cv 01 0812056 S (Jul. 12, 2002)
See Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno , 454 U.S. 235 , 241 , 102 S.Ct. 252 , 70 L.Ed.2d 419 , reh. denied, 455 U.S. 928 , 102 S.Ct. 1296 , 71 L.Ed.2d 474 (1981). "[A] plaintiffs choice of forum should rarely be disturbed.
cited
Cited "see"
Ilusorio v. Ilusorio-Bildner
See Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 254, n. 22 , 102 S.Ct. 252 , 70 L.Ed.2d 419 (1981), reh’g denied, 455 U.S. 928 , 102 S.Ct. 1296 , 71 L.Ed.2d 474 (1982).
cited
Cited "see"
Rappoport v. Steven Spielberg, Inc.
See Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 249-250 , 102 S.Ct. 252 , 70 L.Ed.2d 419 (1981), reh’g denied, 455 U.S. 928 , 102 S.Ct. 1296 , 71 L.Ed.2d 474 (1982).
cited
Cited "see"
Eric F. Weiss Mary E. Weiss v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
See United States v. Dahlstrum, 493 F.Supp. 966 (C.D.Cal.1980), appeal dismissed, 655 F.2d 971 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 928 , 102 S.Ct. 1293 , 71 L.Ed.2d 472 (1982).
cited
Cited "see"
Nieminen v. Breeze-Eastern, a Division of Transtechnology Corp.
See Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 257 , 102 S.Ct. 252, 266 , 70 L.Ed.2d 419, 436 (1981), reh’g denied, 455 U.S. 928 , 102 S.Ct. 1296 , 71 L.Ed.2d 474 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
Karrels v. Adolph Coors Co.
See Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 253 , 102 S.Ct. 252, 264-65 , *175 70 L.Ed.2d 419 (1981), reh'g denied, 455 U.S. 928 , 102 S.Ct. 1296 , 71 L.Ed.2d 474 (1982); Club Assistance Program, Inc. v. Zukerman, 598 F.Supp. 734, 736 (N.D.Ill.1984). 6 .
cited
Cited "see"
Central Telecommunications, Inc. v. Tci Cablevision, Inc., Community Telecommunications, Inc. And Telecommunications, Inc.
See Federal Prescription Service, Inc. v. Pharmaceutical Ass’n, 663 F.2d 253, 266 (D.C.Cir.1981), cer t. denied, 455 U.S. 928 , 102 S.Ct. 1293 , 71 L.Ed.2d 472 (1982). [13] 693 F.2d at 746.
cited
Cited "see"
Wilk v. American Medical Association
See Federal Prescription Service v. American Pharmaceutical Association, 663 F.2d 253 (D.C.Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 928 , 102 S.Ct. 1293 , 71 L.Ed.2d 472 (1982). 4.
cited
Cited "see"
Wilk v. American Medical Ass'n
See Federal Prescription Service v. American Pharmaceutical Association, 663 F.2d 253 (D.C.Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 928 , 102 S.Ct. 1293 , 71 L.Ed.2d 472 (1982). 4.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Weiss
See U.S. v. Dahlstrum, 493 F.Supp. 966 (C.D.Cal.1980), appeal dismissed, 655 F.2d 971 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 928 , 102 S.Ct. 1293 , 71 L.Ed.2d 472 (1982). 3 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Bruno
Compare United States v. Dahlstrum, 655 F.2d 971, 975 (9th Cir. 1981) (retrial is barred when trial court, not defendant, “was the instigator and the primary mover of the events that led to the dismissal of the indictment”), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 928 , 102 S. Ct. 1293 , 71 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Dionisio
See, e.g., 16 1 Finally, the district court relied specifically on the finding in United States v. Dahlstrum, 655 2 F.2d 971, 974 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 928 (1982), that an indictment’s “dismissal is 3 not equivalent to acquittal even if dismissal is ‘with prejudice.’” 415 F. Supp. 2d at 199 (citing 4 United States v. Vaughan, 715 F.2d 1373, 1376 (9th Cir. 1983)).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Edwin A. Neal
Compare United States v. Dahlstrum, 655 F.2d 971, 973-75 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 928 , 102 S.Ct. 1293 , 71 L.Ed.2d 472 (1982) (holding that appeal was barred where "judge was the instigator and the primary mover of the events ... [leading] to the dismissal” on legal grounds) with United States v. Kennings, 861 F.2d 381, 385 (3d Cir.1988) (holding that double jeopardy did not bar appeal of a sua sponte dismissal where defendant did not initiate the proceeding, but "actively supported the judge's legal claim that the government's case against him must fail"). 3 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Indian Head, Inc., Cross-Appellee v. Allied Tube & Conduit Corporation, Cross-Appellant
See also Federal Prescription Service v. American Pharmaceutical Association, 471 F.Supp. 126, 130 (D.D.C.1979) (efforts to solicit support in a campaign to induce governmental action “were at least indirect attempts to influence governmental behavior” deserving protection), aff'd, 663 F.2d 253 , 262 n. 6 (D.C.Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 928 , 102 S.Ct. 1293 , 71 L.Ed.2d 472 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States Football League v. National Football League
(2×)
(CCH) ¶ 64,527 at 72,926-29 (N.D.Ga.1981); see also Federal Prescription Service Inc. v. American Pharmaceutical Ass’n, 663 F.2d 253 , 263 & n. 10 (D.C.Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 928 , 102 S.Ct. 1293 , 71 L.Ed.2d 472 (1982) (dicta).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Hu v. Crockett
See also Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 252 , 102 S.Ct. 252, 265 , 70 L.Ed.2d 419, 434 (1981), reh. denied, 455 U.S. 928 , 102 S.Ct. 1296 , 71 L.Ed.2d 474 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Litton Sys., Inc. v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.
The jury could have concluded from this and other evidence of intransigent cutover practices that AT & T’s conduct injured Litton and other terminal equipment competitors. 43 AT & T takes the position that these practices amounted to no more than de minimis injury under Berkey Photo Inc., 603 F.2d at 288-89 ; see also Federal Prescription Service Inc. v. American Pharmaceutical Ass’n, 663 F.2d 253, 268-71 (D.C.Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 928 , 102 S.Ct. 1293 , 71 L.Ed.2d 472 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Litton Systems, Inc., Litton Business Telephone Systems, Inc., Litton Business Systems, Inc., and Litton Industries Credit Corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellees- Cross v. American Telephone and Telegraph Company, Western Electric Company, Inc., Bell Telephone Laboratories, Inc., New York Telephone Company, Inc., New Jersey Bell Telephone Company, Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company, the Ohio Bell Telephone Company, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, the Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company, and Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Company, Defendants-Appellants-Cross Litton Systems, Inc. v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Company
The jury could have concluded from this and other evidence of intransigent cutover practices that AT & T's conduct injured Litton and other terminal equipment competitors. 43 94 AT & T takes the position that these practices amounted to no more than de minimis injury under Berkey Photo Inc., 603 F.2d at 288-89 ; see also Federal Prescription Service Inc. v. American Pharmaceutical Ass'n, 663 F.2d 253 , 268-71 (D.C.Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 928 , 102 S.Ct. 1293 , 71 L.Ed.2d 472 (1982).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Mesa Petroleum Co.
v.
Kansas Power & Light Co., Inc.
v.
Kansas Power & Light Co., Inc.
No. 81-711.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 25, 1982.
Sup. Ct. Kan. Motions of Kansas Independent Oil & Gas Association et al. and Legal Foundation of America for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted. Certiorari denied.
Justice Brennan, Justice Marshall, and Justice Blackmun would grant certiorari.