Noerr-Pennington doctrine in Michigan

5 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2003 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Michigan courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (1)

Case	Followed	Cited
J & J Construction Co. v. Bricklayers & Allied Craftsmen, Local 1green michctapp · 2001 · cited in 1 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003 2 sentences 2003The “market participant” exception to the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, adopted in some jurisdictions, but rejected in others, generally provides that a petitioner is not insulated from liability for defamation while petitioning the government where the governmental entity is acting as a market participant, as opposed to making policy. 245 Mich App 722, 733-734 ; 631 NW2d 42 (2001), citing George R Whitten, Jr, Inc v Paddock Pool Builders, Inc, 424 F2d 25 (CA 1, 1970) (adopting an exception to NoerrPennington where the government is performing a proprietary function); Greenwood Utilities Comm v M 2003The “market participant” exception to the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, adopted in some jurisdictions, but rejected in others, generally provides that a petitioner is not insulated from liability for defamation while petitioning the government where the governmental entity is acting as a market participant, as opposed to making policy. 245 Mich App 722, 733-734 ; 631 NW2d 42 (2001), citing George R Whitten, Jr, Inc v Paddock Pool Builders, Inc, 424 F2d 25 (CA 1, 1970) (adopting an exception to NoerrPennington where the government is performing a proprietary function); Greenwood Utilities Comm v M	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (13)

Case	Cited	Years
Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc. green scotus · 1961 2 sentences 2003The Noerr-Pennington doctrine is derived from two United States Supreme Court cases pertaining to the Petition Clause and antitrust laws: Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v Noerr Motor Freight, Inc, 365 US 127 ; 81 S Ct 523 ; 5 L Ed 2d 464 (1961), and United Mine Workers of America v Pennington, 381 US 657 ; 85 S Ct 1585 ; 14 L Ed 2d 626 (1965). 2003The Noerr-Pennington doctrine is derived from two United States Supreme Court cases pertaining to the Petition Clause and antitrust laws: Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v Noerr Motor Freight, Inc, 365 US 127 ; 81 S Ct 523 ; 5 L Ed 2d 464 (1961), and United Mine Workers of America v Pennington, 381 US 657 ; 85 S Ct 1585 ; 14 L Ed 2d 626 (1965).	2	2001–2003
United Mine Workers v. Pennington green scotus · 1965 2 sentences 2003The Noerr-Pennington doctrine is derived from two United States Supreme Court cases pertaining to the Petition Clause and antitrust laws: Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v Noerr Motor Freight, Inc, 365 US 127 ; 81 S Ct 523 ; 5 L Ed 2d 464 (1961), and United Mine Workers of America v Pennington, 381 US 657 ; 85 S Ct 1585 ; 14 L Ed 2d 626 (1965). 2003The Noerr-Pennington doctrine is derived from two United States Supreme Court cases pertaining to the Petition Clause and antitrust laws: Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v Noerr Motor Freight, Inc, 365 US 127 ; 81 S Ct 523 ; 5 L Ed 2d 464 (1961), and United Mine Workers of America v Pennington, 381 US 657 ; 85 S Ct 1585 ; 14 L Ed 2d 626 (1965).	2	2001–2003
Azzar v. PRIMEBANK, FSB green michctapp · 1993 2 sentences 2003Because the trial court only issued a finding that defendant’s defamatory statements were negligent, the Court of Appeals remanded the case to the trial court for a determination whether defendant’s conduct constituted “actual malice.” Regarding the claim of tortious interference with business expectations, the Court of Appeals held that “ ‘the Noerr-Pennington doctrine is a principle of constitutional law that bars litigation arising from injuries received as a consequence of First Amendment petitioning activity, regardless of the underlying cause of action asserted by the plaintiffs.’ ” 245 2003Because the trial court only issued a finding that defendant’s defamatory statements were negligent, the Court of Appeals remanded the case to the trial court for a determination whether defendant’s conduct constituted “actual malice.” Regarding the claim of tortious interference with business expectations, the Court of Appeals held that “ ‘the Noerr-Pennington doctrine is a principle of constitutional law that bars litigation arising from injuries received as a consequence of First Amendment petitioning activity, regardless of the underlying cause of action asserted by the plaintiffs.’ ” 245	2	2001–2003
Greenwood Utilities Commission v. Mississippi Power Company, Greenwood Utilities Commission v. Mississippi Power Company green ca5 · 1985 2 sentences 2003Recovery under this provision shall be limited to economic damages including attorney fees. [4] The Noerr-Pennington doctrine is derived from two United States Supreme Court cases pertaining to the Petition Clause and antitrust laws: Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc., 365 U.S. 127 , 81 S.Ct. 523 , 5 L.Ed.2d 464 (1961), and United Mine Workers of America v. Pennington, 381 U.S. 657 , 85 S.Ct. 1585 , 14 L.Ed.2d 626 (1965). [5] The "market participant" exception to the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, adopted in some jurisdictions, but rejected in others, generally pro 2003Recovery under this provision shall be limited to economic damages including attorney fees. [4] The Noerr-Pennington doctrine is derived from two United States Supreme Court cases pertaining to the Petition Clause and antitrust laws: Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc., 365 U.S. 127 , 81 S.Ct. 523 , 5 L.Ed.2d 464 (1961), and United Mine Workers of America v. Pennington, 381 U.S. 657 , 85 S.Ct. 1585 , 14 L.Ed.2d 626 (1965). [5] The "market participant" exception to the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, adopted in some jurisdictions, but rejected in others, generally pro	1	2003–2003
George R. Whitten, Jr., Inc., Doing Business as Whitten Corporation v. Paddock Pool Builders, Inc. green ca1 · 1970 2 sentences 2003Recovery under this provision shall be limited to economic damages including attorney fees. [4] The Noerr-Pennington doctrine is derived from two United States Supreme Court cases pertaining to the Petition Clause and antitrust laws: Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc., 365 U.S. 127 , 81 S.Ct. 523 , 5 L.Ed.2d 464 (1961), and United Mine Workers of America v. Pennington, 381 U.S. 657 , 85 S.Ct. 1585 , 14 L.Ed.2d 626 (1965). [5] The "market participant" exception to the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, adopted in some jurisdictions, but rejected in others, generally pro 2003Recovery under this provision shall be limited to economic damages including attorney fees. [4] The Noerr-Pennington doctrine is derived from two United States Supreme Court cases pertaining to the Petition Clause and antitrust laws: Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc., 365 U.S. 127 , 81 S.Ct. 523 , 5 L.Ed.2d 464 (1961), and United Mine Workers of America v. Pennington, 381 U.S. 657 , 85 S.Ct. 1585 , 14 L.Ed.2d 626 (1965). [5] The "market participant" exception to the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, adopted in some jurisdictions, but rejected in others, generally pro	1	2003–2003
Arim v. General Motors Corp. green michctapp · 1994 2 sentences 2001There is simply no reason that a common-law tort doc 730 trine can any more permissibly abridge or chill the constitutional right of petition than can a statutory claim such as antitrust.” [Arim v General Motors Corp, 206 Mich App 178, 191 ; 520 NW2d 695 (1994), omitting citations and quoting with approval Video Int’l Production, Inc v Warner-Amex Cable Communications, Inc, 858 F2d 1075, 1084 (CA 5, 1988).] Stated otherwise, “the Noerr-Pennington doctrine is a principle of constitutional law that bars litigation arising from injuries received as a consequence of First Amendment petitioning ac 2001There is simply no reason that a common-law tort doc 730 trine can any more permissibly abridge or chill the constitutional right of petition than can a statutory claim such as antitrust.” [Arim v General Motors Corp, 206 Mich App 178, 191 ; 520 NW2d 695 (1994), omitting citations and quoting with approval Video Int’l Production, Inc v Warner-Amex Cable Communications, Inc, 858 F2d 1075, 1084 (CA 5, 1988).] Stated otherwise, “the Noerr-Pennington doctrine is a principle of constitutional law that bars litigation arising from injuries received as a consequence of First Amendment petitioning ac	1	2001–2001
City of Columbia v. Omni Outdoor Advertising, Inc. green scotus · 1991 2 sentences 1994There is simply no reason that a common-law tort doctrine can any more permissibly abridge or chill the constitutional right of petition than can a statutory claim such as antitrust. [Citations omitted.] Furthermore, contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, there is nothing in City of Columbia, supra, to indicate that the Court limited the application of the doctrine to antitrust cases. 1994There is simply no reason that a common-law tort doctrine can any more permissibly abridge or chill the constitutional right of petition than can a statutory claim such as antitrust. [Citations omitted.] Furthermore, contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, there is nothing in City of Columbia, supra, to indicate that the Court limited the application of the doctrine to antitrust cases.	1	1994–1994
California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited green scotus · 1972 2 sentences 1994In Potters, supra at 578, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals also noted, citing California Motor Transport Co v Trucking Unlimited, 404 US 508, 510 ; 92 S Ct 609 ; 30 L Ed 2d 642 (1972), that "the protection of the Noerr-Pennington doctrine [extends] to 190 efforts to influence administrative agencies and the courts.” Until recently, courts have identified two separate exceptions to the Noerr-Pennington doctrine: (1) the "sham” exception and (2) the "coconspirator” exception. 1994In Potters, supra at 578, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals also noted, citing California Motor Transport Co v Trucking Unlimited, 404 US 508, 510 ; 92 S Ct 609 ; 30 L Ed 2d 642 (1972), that "the protection of the Noerr-Pennington doctrine [extends] to 190 efforts to influence administrative agencies and the courts.” Until recently, courts have identified two separate exceptions to the Noerr-Pennington doctrine: (1) the "sham” exception and (2) the "coconspirator” exception.	1	1994–1994
Webb v. Fury green wva · 1981 2 sentences 1993Webb v Fury, 167 W Va 434; 282 SE2d 28 (1981). 1993Webb v Fury, 167 W Va 434; 282 SE2d 28 (1981).	1	1993–1993
Sierra Club v. Butz green cand · 1972 2 sentences 1984See Clipper Exxpress v Rocky Mountain Motor Tariff Bureau, Inc, 674 F2d 1252 (CA 9, 1982), modified 690 F2d 1240 (CA 9, 1982), cert den, — US —; 103 S Ct 1234 ; 75 L Ed 2d 468 (1983), Sage International, Ltd v Cadillac Gage Co, 507 F Supp 939 (ED Mich, 1981). 383 In Sierra Club v Butz, 349 F Supp 934 (ND Cal, 1972), the Noerr-Pennington doctrine and sham exception were applied by analogy in the context of a counterclaim for interference with advantageous relationship. 1984See Clipper Exxpress v Rocky Mountain Motor Tariff Bureau, Inc, 674 F2d 1252 (CA 9, 1982), modified 690 F2d 1240 (CA 9, 1982), cert den, — US —; 103 S Ct 1234 ; 75 L Ed 2d 468 (1983), Sage International, Ltd v Cadillac Gage Co, 507 F Supp 939 (ED Mich, 1981). 383 In Sierra Club v Butz, 349 F Supp 934 (ND Cal, 1972), the Noerr-Pennington doctrine and sham exception were applied by analogy in the context of a counterclaim for interference with advantageous relationship.	1	1984–1984
Sage International, Ltd. v. Cadillac Gage Co. green mied · 1981 2 sentences 1984See Clipper Exxpress v Rocky Mountain Motor Tariff Bureau, Inc, 674 F2d 1252 (CA 9, 1982), modified 690 F2d 1240 (CA 9, 1982), cert den, — US —; 103 S Ct 1234 ; 75 L Ed 2d 468 (1983), Sage International, Ltd v Cadillac Gage Co, 507 F Supp 939 (ED Mich, 1981). 383 In Sierra Club v Butz, 349 F Supp 934 (ND Cal, 1972), the Noerr-Pennington doctrine and sham exception were applied by analogy in the context of a counterclaim for interference with advantageous relationship. 1984See Clipper Exxpress v Rocky Mountain Motor Tariff Bureau, Inc, 674 F2d 1252 (CA 9, 1982), modified 690 F2d 1240 (CA 9, 1982), cert den, — US —; 103 S Ct 1234 ; 75 L Ed 2d 468 (1983), Sage International, Ltd v Cadillac Gage Co, 507 F Supp 939 (ED Mich, 1981). 383 In Sierra Club v Butz, 349 F Supp 934 (ND Cal, 1972), the Noerr-Pennington doctrine and sham exception were applied by analogy in the context of a counterclaim for interference with advantageous relationship.	1	1984–1984
Church of Scientology Mission v. Christofferson green scotus · 1983 2 sentences 1984See Clipper Exxpress v Rocky Mountain Motor Tariff Bureau, Inc, 674 F2d 1252 (CA 9, 1982), modified 690 F2d 1240 (CA 9, 1982), cert den, — US —; 103 S Ct 1234 ; 75 L Ed 2d 468 (1983), Sage International, Ltd v Cadillac Gage Co, 507 F Supp 939 (ED Mich, 1981). 383 In Sierra Club v Butz, 349 F Supp 934 (ND Cal, 1972), the Noerr-Pennington doctrine and sham exception were applied by analogy in the context of a counterclaim for interference with advantageous relationship. 1984See Clipper Exxpress v Rocky Mountain Motor Tariff Bureau, Inc, 674 F2d 1252 (CA 9, 1982), modified 690 F2d 1240 (CA 9, 1982), cert den, — US —; 103 S Ct 1234 ; 75 L Ed 2d 468 (1983), Sage International, Ltd v Cadillac Gage Co, 507 F Supp 939 (ED Mich, 1981). 383 In Sierra Club v Butz, 349 F Supp 934 (ND Cal, 1972), the Noerr-Pennington doctrine and sham exception were applied by analogy in the context of a counterclaim for interference with advantageous relationship.	1	1984–1984
Haas v. Hash green scotus · 1983 2 sentences 1984See Clipper Exxpress v Rocky Mountain Motor Tariff Bureau, Inc, 674 F2d 1252 (CA 9, 1982), modified 690 F2d 1240 (CA 9, 1982), cert den, — US —; 103 S Ct 1234 ; 75 L Ed 2d 468 (1983), Sage International, Ltd v Cadillac Gage Co, 507 F Supp 939 (ED Mich, 1981). 383 In Sierra Club v Butz, 349 F Supp 934 (ND Cal, 1972), the Noerr-Pennington doctrine and sham exception were applied by analogy in the context of a counterclaim for interference with advantageous relationship. 1984See Clipper Exxpress v Rocky Mountain Motor Tariff Bureau, Inc, 674 F2d 1252 (CA 9, 1982), modified 690 F2d 1240 (CA 9, 1982), cert den, — US —; 103 S Ct 1234 ; 75 L Ed 2d 468 (1983), Sage International, Ltd v Cadillac Gage Co, 507 F Supp 939 (ED Mich, 1981). 383 In Sierra Club v Butz, 349 F Supp 934 (ND Cal, 1972), the Noerr-Pennington doctrine and sham exception were applied by analogy in the context of a counterclaim for interference with advantageous relationship.	1	1984–1984

Where else courts name it

CA 35 (1982–2024) CT 22 (1990–2026) NY 20 (1999–2026) TX 16 (1997–2017) IL 14 (1975–2024) NM 14 (1997–2024) NC 10 (2003–2026) RI 9 (1996–2015) NJ 9 (1993–2025) CO 7 (1984–2025) MN 7 (1997–2014) WV 7 (1981–2021) LA 6 (2005–2024) KY 6 (2004–2025) AK 6 (1986–2017) WI 6 (1988–2008) DE 6 (2014–2025) VA 5 (1984–2011) MI 5 (1984–2003) MA 4 (1997–2023) PA 4 (2001–2018) MS 4 (1999–2019) AL 4 (2009–2012) MD 3 (1983–2014) FL 2 (1993–2017) IN 2 (1975–1975) NV 2 (2009–2019) WA 2 (2015–2015) OH 2 (2012–2022) OR 2 (2003–2016) OK 2 (1997–1999) NE 2 (2017–2017) VT 2 (2016–2024)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check