10 North Carolina opinions name it 3 courts 2003–2026 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Carolina 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
United Mine Workers v. Penningtongreen2 sentences2020Ed.2d 464 (1961) (“Noerr”), and United Mine Workers v. Pennington, 381 U.S. 657 , 85 S. Ct. 1585 , 14 L. 2020Ed.2d 464 (1961) (“Noerr”), and United Mine Workers v. Pennington, 381 U.S. 657 , 85 S. Ct. 1585 , 14 L. | 4 | 4 |
Reichhold Chemicals, Inc. v. Goelgreen2 sentences2011The inquiry, then, is whether an unfair practice has been proven based on such breach coupled with anti-competitive intent, or whether Lorillard is immunized from such a finding. {16} The North Carolina Court of Appeals in Reichold held that a litigant can be sheltered from liability under Section 75–1.1 by application of the federal Noerr-Pennington doctrine. 146 N.C. 2011The court’s adoption of PRE’s reasoning to control Section 75–1.1 means that it conversely follows that the “sham litigation” exception to the Noerr-Pennington doctrine would apply to claims under that section when 1) the claim asserted is “objectively meritless” and 2) the court finds “the litigant’s subjective motivation” was an unlawful intent to “interfere directly 7 The federal Noerr-Pennington Doctrine arose under the federal Sherman Act, on which certain provisions of Chapter 75 are modeled, whereas Chapter 75–1.1 was based on Section 5 of the FTC Act. 8 However, because the suit was no | 2 | 2 |
Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc.green2 sentences2020As the Supreme Court of North Carolina recently explained: The Noerr-Pennington doctrine originates from the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc., 365 U.S. 127 , 81 S. Ct. 523 , 5 L. 2020As the Supreme Court of North Carolina recently explained: The Noerr-Pennington doctrine originates from the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc., 365 U.S. 127 , 81 S. Ct. 523 , 5 L. | 1 | 3 |
Sykes v. Health Network Solutions, Inc.green2 sentences2026Ct. Mar. 4, 2024) (holding that the Noerr- Pennington doctrine is applicable to claims for UDTP). 4 The “learned profession” exemption immunizes a defendant from UDTP liability where: (1) “the person or entity performing the alleged act [is] a member of a learned profession[;]” and (2) “the conduct in question [involves] rendering of professional services.” Sykes v. Health Network Sols., Inc., 372 N.C. 326, 334 (2019) (cleaned up); see also Moch v. A.M. 2026Ct. Mar. 4, 2024) (holding that the Noerr- Pennington doctrine is applicable to claims for UDTP). 4 The “learned profession” exemption immunizes a defendant from UDTP liability where: (1) “the person or entity performing the alleged act [is] a member of a learned profession[;]” and (2) “the conduct in question [involves] rendering of professional services.” Sykes v. Health Network Sols., Inc., 372 N.C. 326, 334 (2019) (cleaned up); see also Moch v. A.M. | 1 | 1 |
Moch v. A.M. Pappas & Associates, LLCgreen2 sentences2026Pappas & Assocs., LLC, 251 N.C. 2026Pappas & Assocs., LLC, 251 N.C. | 1 | 1 |
Igen International, Incorporated v. Roche Diagnostics Gmbhgreen2 sentences2021See IGEN Int’l, Inc. v. Roche Diagnostics GMBH, 335 F.3d 303 , 310 (4th Cir. 2003). 2021See IGEN Int’l, Inc. v. Roche Diagnostics GMBH, 335 F.3d 303 , 310 (4th Cir. 2003). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Wardgreen2 sentences2020Under the sham-litigation exception to the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, ‘[t]he institution of a lawsuit may be the basis for an unfair trade practices claim if the lawsuit is a mere sham to cover what is actually nothing more than an attempt to interfere directly with the business relationships of a competitor.’” Velocity Solutions, Inc., 2016 NCBC LEXIS 19 , at *15 (quoting United States v. Ward, 618 F. Supp. 884, 907 (E.D.N.C. 1985)). “[T]he ‘sham litigation’ exception to the Noerr-Pennington doctrine would apply to claims under [the UDTPA] when 1) the claim asserted is ‘objectively meritless’ 2020Under the sham-litigation exception to the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, ‘[t]he institution of a lawsuit may be the basis for an unfair trade practices claim if the lawsuit is a mere sham to cover what is actually nothing more than an attempt to interfere directly with the business relationships of a competitor.’” Velocity Solutions, Inc., 2016 NCBC LEXIS 19 , at *15 (quoting United States v. Ward, 618 F. Supp. 884, 907 (E.D.N.C. 1985)). “[T]he ‘sham litigation’ exception to the Noerr-Pennington doctrine would apply to claims under [the UDTPA] when 1) the claim asserted is ‘objectively meritless’ | 1 | 1 |
Forro Precision, Inc. v. International Business MacHines Corp.green2 sentences2012Business Machines, 673 F.2d 1045 (9th Cir. 1982), Plaintiff argues that providing information to the police triggers the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. 2012Id. at 1060 (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Good Hope Hospital, Inc. v. North Carolina Department of Health & Human Servicesgreen2 sentences2012Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 174 N.C. 2012Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 174 N.C. | 1 | 1 |
Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.green2 sentences2011Noting that Chapter 75 was modeled on federal antitrust law, the court held that “federal decisions may provide guidance in determining [its] scope and meaning” and then applied the Noerr-Pennington doctrine to Section 75–1.1. 7 Id. 2011Noting that Chapter 75 was modeled on federal antitrust law, the court held that “federal decisions may provide guidance in determining [its] scope and meaning” and then applied the Noerr-Pennington doctrine to Section 75–1.1. 7 Id. | 1 | 1 |
Hamilton v. Accu-Tekgreen2 sentences2006Conf. v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc., 365 U.S. 127, 144 (1961); see also Hamilton v. Accu-Tek, 935 F. Supp. 1307, 1321, 1324-25 (E.D.N.Y. 1996) (applying the Noerr-Pennington doctrine in the negligence and product liability context), vacated & remanded on other grounds sub nom. 2006Conf. v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc., 365 U.S. 127, 144 (1961); see also Hamilton v. Accu-Tek, 935 F. Supp. 1307, 1321, 1324-25 (E.D.N.Y. 1996) (applying the Noerr-Pennington doctrine in the negligence and product liability context), vacated & remanded on other grounds sub nom. | 1 | 1 |
Sheldon P. KOTTLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NORTHWEST KIDNEY CENTERS, Defendant-Appelleegreen2 sentences2005Cal., 1996) (“Noerr immunity bars any claim, federal or state, common law or statutory, that has as its gravamen constitutionally-protected petitioning activity.”); Kottle v. Northwest Kidney Ctrs., 146 F.3d 1056, 1059 (9th Cir., 1998) (“Thus, the Noerr-Pennington doctrine sweeps broadly and is implicated by both state and federal antitrust claims that allege anticompetitive activity in the form of lobbying or advocacy before any branch of either federal or state government.”). 2005Cal., 1996) (“Noerr immunity bars any claim, federal or state, common law or statutory, that has as its gravamen constitutionally-protected petitioning activity.”); Kottle v. Northwest Kidney Ctrs., 146 F.3d 1056, 1059 (9th Cir., 1998) (“Thus, the Noerr-Pennington doctrine sweeps broadly and is implicated by both state and federal antitrust claims that allege anticompetitive activity in the form of lobbying or advocacy before any branch of either federal or state government.”). | 1 | 1 |
Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. v. Indian Head, Inc.green2 sentences2004See Superior Court Trial Lawyers, 486 U.S. at 500 . {31} In Allied Tube, the petitioner, a large steel manufacturer, sought to exclude a plastic conduit from the list of approved electrical conduits under the National Electrical Code (the “NEC”) of the National Fire Protection Association (the “NFPA”). 486 U.S. at 495-96 . 2004See Superior Court Trial Lawyers, 486 U.S. at 500 . {31} In Allied Tube, the petitioner, a large steel manufacturer, sought to exclude a plastic conduit from the list of approved electrical conduits under the National Electrical Code (the “NEC”) of the National Fire Protection Association (the “NFPA”). 486 U.S. at 495-96 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Federal Trade Commission v. Ticor Title Insurance
green
2 sentences2020Ed. 2d 24 (1985), and that we “employed an analysis fully consistent with federal jurisprudence.” Plaintiffs emphasize that “[t]he federal state-action immunity doctrine is the product of seven decades of jurisprudence,” beginning with Parker; that “[i]t is the best rubric available for understanding the circumstances under which government- related actors may and may not be liable under the antitrust laws”; and that “the doctrine grants immunity from suit under the Sherman Act to substate governmental entities like municipalities and hospital authorities only if the legislature intended to re 2020Ed. 2d 24 (1985), and that we “employed an analysis fully consistent with federal jurisprudence.” Plaintiffs emphasize that “[t]he federal state-action immunity doctrine is the product of seven decades of jurisprudence,” beginning with Parker; that “[i]t is the best rubric available for understanding the circumstances under which government- related actors may and may not be liable under the antitrust laws”; and that “the doctrine grants immunity from suit under the Sherman Act to substate governmental entities like municipalities and hospital authorities only if the legislature intended to re | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Madison Cablevision, Inc. v. City of Morganton
green
2 sentences2020Opinion of the Court 873, 881–82 (2005) (adopting the federal Noerr-Pennington doctrine) Moreover, plaintiffs assert that we stated in Madison Cablevision, 325 N.C. at 657 , 386 S.E.2d at 213 , that our decision in that case was “fortified” by the reasoning of the United States Supreme Court in Town of Hallie v. City of Eau Claire, 471 U.S. 34 , 105 S. Ct. 1713 , 85 L. 2020Opinion of the Court 873, 881–82 (2005) (adopting the federal Noerr-Pennington doctrine) Moreover, plaintiffs assert that we stated in Madison Cablevision, 325 N.C. at 657 , 386 S.E.2d at 213 , that our decision in that case was “fortified” by the reasoning of the United States Supreme Court in Town of Hallie v. City of Eau Claire, 471 U.S. 34 , 105 S. Ct. 1713 , 85 L. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Town of Hallie v. City of Eau Claire
green
2 sentences2020Opinion of the Court 873, 881–82 (2005) (adopting the federal Noerr-Pennington doctrine) Moreover, plaintiffs assert that we stated in Madison Cablevision, 325 N.C. at 657 , 386 S.E.2d at 213 , that our decision in that case was “fortified” by the reasoning of the United States Supreme Court in Town of Hallie v. City of Eau Claire, 471 U.S. 34 , 105 S. Ct. 1713 , 85 L. 2020Opinion of the Court 873, 881–82 (2005) (adopting the federal Noerr-Pennington doctrine) Moreover, plaintiffs assert that we stated in Madison Cablevision, 325 N.C. at 657 , 386 S.E.2d at 213 , that our decision in that case was “fortified” by the reasoning of the United States Supreme Court in Town of Hallie v. City of Eau Claire, 471 U.S. 34 , 105 S. Ct. 1713 , 85 L. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Freddie Hamilton v. Beretta
green
2 sentences2006Hamilton v. Beretta U.S.A., Inc., 264 F.3d 21 (2d Cir. 2001). {125} Under the doctrine, actions against businesses or individuals are prohibited where the activity that is being challenged involves lobbying, “despite the defendant’s anticompetitive or otherwise injurious purpose or effect.” Hamilton, 935 F. Supp. at 1316 . 2006Hamilton v. Beretta U.S.A., Inc., 264 F.3d 21 (2d Cir. 2001). {125} Under the doctrine, actions against businesses or individuals are prohibited where the activity that is being challenged involves lobbying, “despite the defendant’s anticompetitive or otherwise injurious purpose or effect.” Hamilton, 935 F. Supp. at 1316 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
City of Columbia v. Omni Outdoor Advertising, Inc.
green
2 sentences2004City of Columbia, 499 U.S. at 398 ; United Mine Workers v. Pennington, 381 U.S. 657, 670 (1965). {23} Noerr-Pennington clearly extends to administrative agencies, and no case law exists that suggests the doctrine would not cover the petitioning of an agency such as DENR. 2004City of Columbia, 499 U.S. at 398 ; United Mine Workers v. Pennington, 381 U.S. 657, 670 (1965). {23} Noerr-Pennington clearly extends to administrative agencies, and no case law exists that suggests the doctrine would not cover the petitioning of an agency such as DENR. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.