9 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Jersey 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 |
|---|---|---|
BROWNSVILLE GOLDEN AGE NURSING HOME, INC., Appellant, v. Joann WELLS, Paula Snyder, Joyce McNamara and John Heinzgreen2 sentences2001Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc., 365 U.S. 127 , 81 S.Ct. 523 , 5 L.Ed. 2d 464 (1961) (the socalled Noerr-Pennington doctrine) (holding that the collusive use by competitors of legislative, administrative or judicial process does not, without more, give rise to antitrust violations); Brownsville Golden Age Nursing Home, Inc. v. Wells, 839 F. 2d 155, 160 (3rd Cir.1988) (holding that defendants could not be held tortiously liable for calling nursing home violations to the attention of governmental authorities and in soliciting public interest in the violations); Village Superma 1996See, e.g., South Dakota v. Kansas City S. Indus., Inc., 880 F.2d 40 , 50-51 (8th Cir.1989) (finding that defendant’s litigation activities were protected under Noerr-Pennington doctrine against liability for tortious interference with contract); Brownsville Golden Age Nursing Home, Inc. v. Wells, 839 F. 2d 155, 160 (3d Cir.1988) (holding that “as a matter of law, [the individuals’] actions in calling [the nursing home’s] violations to the attention of state and federal authorities and eliciting public interest cannot serve as the basis of tort liability”); Havoco of America, Ltd. v. Hollobow, | 3 | 3 |
Fraser v. Bovinogreen2 sentences2017Super. 467, 471 (App. Div. 2005) (Noerr-Pennington doctrine affords immunity to persons who object to land use applications); Fraser v. Bovino, 317 N.J. 2001Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc., 365 U.S. 127 , 81 S.Ct. 523 , 5 L.Ed. 2d 464 (1961) (the socalled Noerr-Pennington doctrine) (holding that the collusive use by competitors of legislative, administrative or judicial process does not, without more, give rise to antitrust violations); Brownsville Golden Age Nursing Home, Inc. v. Wells, 839 F. 2d 155, 160 (3rd Cir.1988) (holding that defendants could not be held tortiously liable for calling nursing home violations to the attention of governmental authorities and in soliciting public interest in the violations); Village Superma | 2 | 4 |
Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.green2 sentences2017Super. 23, 37-38 (App. Div. 1998) (objectors to land use applications are immune from tort liability under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine unless "the conduct at issue 'is a mere sham to cover . . . an attempt to interfere directly with the business relationships of a competitor.'" (quoting PRE, supra, at 60-61, 113 S. Ct. at 1928 , 123 L. 2017Super. 23, 37-38 (App. Div. 1998) (objectors to land use applications are immune from tort liability under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine unless "the conduct at issue 'is a mere sham to cover . . . an attempt to interfere directly with the business relationships of a competitor.'" (quoting PRE, supra, at 60-61, 113 S. Ct. at 1928 , 123 L. | 1 | 3 |
MAIN STREET AT WOOLWICH, LLC VS. AMMONS SUPERMARKET, INC.(L-1477-14, GLOUCESTER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)green2 sentences2020The Noerr-Pennington doctrine generally provides immunity for complainants "who petition the government for redress . . . unless the action is objectively baseless." Ammons, 451 N.J. 2020The Noerr-Pennington doctrine generally provides immunity for complainants "who petition the government for redress . . . unless the action is objectively baseless." Ammons, 451 N.J. | 1 | 2 |
Sierra Club v. Butzgreen2 sentences2001Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc., 365 U.S. 127 , 81 S.Ct. 523 , 5 L.Ed. 2d 464 (1961) (the socalled Noerr-Pennington doctrine) (holding that the collusive use by competitors of legislative, administrative or judicial process does not, without more, give rise to antitrust violations); Brownsville Golden Age Nursing Home, Inc. v. Wells, 839 F. 2d 155, 160 (3rd Cir.1988) (holding that defendants could not be held tortiously liable for calling nursing home violations to the attention of governmental authorities and in soliciting public interest in the violations); Village Superma 1993For the reasons given by the Supreme Court in [ Noerr ], this court is persuaded that all persons, regardless of motive, are guaranteed by the First Amendment the right to seek to influence the government or its officials to adopt a new policy, and they cannot be required to compensate another for loss occasioned by a change in policy should they be successful. [ Id. at 938 .] The holding in Columbia Pictures deals with the "sham" exception to Noerr-Pennington immunity. | 1 | 2 |
OASIS THERAPEUTIC LIFE CENTERS, INC. VS. PETER G. WADE (L-1287-17, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)green2 sentences2025See Oasis Therapeutic Life Ctrs., Inc. v. Wade, 457 N.J. 2025See Oasis Therapeutic Life Ctrs., Inc. v. Wade, 457 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Structure Bldg. Corp. v. Abellagreen2 sentences2025Corp. v. Abella, 377 N.J. 2025Corp. v. Abella, 377 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Octane Fitness, LLC v. Icon Healthgreen2 sentences2025The doctrine does not apply if the conduct at issue is a "sham." See Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 572 U.S. 545, 556 (2014) (quoting Pro. 2025The doctrine does not apply if the conduct at issue is a "sham." See Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 572 U.S. 545, 556 (2014) (quoting Pro. | 1 | 1 |
Hanover 3201 Realty, LLC v. Village Supermarkets, Inc.green2 sentences2017In addition, and as a matter of first impression, we adopt the holding in Hanover 3201 Realty, LLC v. Village Supermarkets, Inc., 806 F.3d 162, 180 (3d Cir. 2015), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 2451 , 195 L. 2017In addition, and as a matter of first impression, we adopt the holding in Hanover 3201 Realty, LLC v. Village Supermarkets, Inc., 806 F.3d 162, 180 (3d Cir. 2015), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 2451 , 195 L. | 1 | 1 |
LoBiondo v. Schwartzgreen2 sentences2001Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc., 365 U.S. 127 , 81 S.Ct. 523 , 5 L.Ed. 2d 464 (1961) (the socalled Noerr-Pennington doctrine) (holding that the collusive use by competitors of legislative, administrative or judicial process does not, without more, give rise to antitrust violations); Brownsville Golden Age Nursing Home, Inc. v. Wells, 839 F. 2d 155, 160 (3rd Cir.1988) (holding that defendants could not be held tortiously liable for calling nursing home violations to the attention of governmental authorities and in soliciting public interest in the violations); Village Superma 2001Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc., 365 U.S. 127 , 81 S.Ct. 523 , 5 L.Ed. 2d 464 (1961) (the socalled Noerr-Pennington doctrine) (holding that the collusive use by competitors of legislative, administrative or judicial process does not, without more, give rise to antitrust violations); Brownsville Golden Age Nursing Home, Inc. v. Wells, 839 F. 2d 155, 160 (3rd Cir.1988) (holding that defendants could not be held tortiously liable for calling nursing home violations to the attention of governmental authorities and in soliciting public interest in the violations); Village Superma | 1 | 1 |
Barnes Foundation v. Township of Lower Meriongreen2 sentences1998See, e.g., Brownsville Golden Age Nursing Home, Inc. v. Wells, 839 F. 2d 155, 160 (3d Cir.1988) ("`[A]s a matter of law, defendants' actions in calling ... [the nursing home's] violations to the attention of state and federal authorities and eliciting public interest cannot serve as the basis of tort liability"); Barnes Foundation v. Twp. of Lower Merion, 927 F.Supp. 874, 876-78 (E.D.Pa.1996) (neighbors who met to discuss and then to protest alleged violations of land use ordinances exempt from tort liability under Noerr-Pennington ); Village Supermarket v. Mayfair, 269 N.J.Super. 224, 229-32 1998See, e.g., Brownsville Golden Age Nursing Home, Inc. v. Wells, 839 F. 2d 155, 160 (3d Cir.1988) ("`[A]s a matter of law, defendants' actions in calling ... [the nursing home's] violations to the attention of state and federal authorities and eliciting public interest cannot serve as the basis of tort liability"); Barnes Foundation v. Twp. of Lower Merion, 927 F.Supp. 874, 876-78 (E.D.Pa.1996) (neighbors who met to discuss and then to protest alleged violations of land use ordinances exempt from tort liability under Noerr-Pennington ); Village Supermarket v. Mayfair, 269 N.J.Super. 224, 229-32 | 1 | 1 |
First Nat. Bank of Omaha v. Marquette Nat. Bankgreen2 sentences1996See, e.g., South Dakota v. Kansas City S. Indus., Inc., 880 F.2d 40 , 50-51 (8th Cir.1989) (finding that defendant’s litigation activities were protected under Noerr-Pennington doctrine against liability for tortious interference with contract); Brownsville Golden Age Nursing Home, Inc. v. Wells, 839 F. 2d 155, 160 (3d Cir.1988) (holding that “as a matter of law, [the individuals’] actions in calling [the nursing home’s] violations to the attention of state and federal authorities and eliciting public interest cannot serve as the basis of tort liability”); Havoco of America, Ltd. v. Hollobow, 1996See, e.g., South Dakota v. Kansas City S. Indus., Inc., 880 F. 2d 40 , 50-51 (8th Cir.1989) (finding that defendant's litigation activities were protected under Noerr-Pennington doctrine against liability for tortious interference with contract); Brownsville Golden Age Nursing Home, Inc. v. Wells, 839 F. 2d 155, 160 (3d Cir.1988) (holding that "as a matter of law, [the individuals'] actions in calling [the nursing home's] violations to the attention of state and federal authorities and eliciting public interest cannot serve as the basis of tort liability"); Havoco of America, Ltd. v. Hollobow, | 1 | 1 |
cluster 526511green2 sentences1996See, e.g., South Dakota v. Kansas City S. Indus., Inc., 880 F.2d 40 , 50-51 (8th Cir.1989) (finding that defendant’s litigation activities were protected under Noerr-Pennington doctrine against liability for tortious interference with contract); Brownsville Golden Age Nursing Home, Inc. v. Wells, 839 F. 2d 155, 160 (3d Cir.1988) (holding that “as a matter of law, [the individuals’] actions in calling [the nursing home’s] violations to the attention of state and federal authorities and eliciting public interest cannot serve as the basis of tort liability”); Havoco of America, Ltd. v. Hollobow, 1996See, e.g., South Dakota v. Kansas City S. Indus., Inc., 880 F. 2d 40 , 50-51 (8th Cir.1989) (finding that defendant's litigation activities were protected under Noerr-Pennington doctrine against liability for tortious interference with contract); Brownsville Golden Age Nursing Home, Inc. v. Wells, 839 F. 2d 155, 160 (3d Cir.1988) (holding that "as a matter of law, [the individuals'] actions in calling [the nursing home's] violations to the attention of state and federal authorities and eliciting public interest cannot serve as the basis of tort liability"); Havoco of America, Ltd. v. Hollobow, | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Jersey. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc.
green
2 sentences2017Ed. 2d 264 (2016), and conclude that the motion judge was required to consider the allegations in plaintiffs' complaint that the Ammons action was part of a pattern of sham litigation brought by defendants for the purpose of injuring market rivals rather than to redress actual grievances. 1 The Noerr-Pennington doctrine draws its name from the United States Supreme Court opinions in Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc., 365 U.S. 127 , 81 S. Ct. 523 , 5 L. 2017Ed. 2d 264 (2016), and conclude that the motion judge was required to consider the allegations in plaintiffs' complaint that the Ammons action was part of a pattern of sham litigation brought by defendants for the purpose of injuring market rivals rather than to redress actual grievances. 1 The Noerr-Pennington doctrine draws its name from the United States Supreme Court opinions in Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc., 365 U.S. 127 , 81 S. Ct. 523 , 5 L. | 3 | 1998–2017 |
United Mine Workers v. Pennington
green
2 sentences2017Ed. 2d 464 (1961), and United Mine Workers of America v. Pennington, 381 U.S. 657 , 85 S. Ct. 1585 , 14 L. 2017Ed. 2d 464 (1961), and United Mine Workers of America v. Pennington, 381 U.S. 657 , 85 S. Ct. 1585 , 14 L. | 3 | 1998–2017 |
Village Supermarket v. Mayfair
green
2 sentences2001Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc., 365 U.S. 127 , 81 S.Ct. 523 , 5 L.Ed. 2d 464 (1961) (the socalled Noerr-Pennington doctrine) (holding that the collusive use by competitors of legislative, administrative or judicial process does not, without more, give rise to antitrust violations); Brownsville Golden Age Nursing Home, Inc. v. Wells, 839 F. 2d 155, 160 (3rd Cir.1988) (holding that defendants could not be held tortiously liable for calling nursing home violations to the attention of governmental authorities and in soliciting public interest in the violations); Village Superma 2001Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc., 365 U.S. 127 , 81 S.Ct. 523 , 5 L.Ed. 2d 464 (1961) (the socalled Noerr-Pennington doctrine) (holding that the collusive use by competitors of legislative, administrative or judicial process does not, without more, give rise to antitrust violations); Brownsville Golden Age Nursing Home, Inc. v. Wells, 839 F. 2d 155, 160 (3rd Cir.1988) (holding that defendants could not be held tortiously liable for calling nursing home violations to the attention of governmental authorities and in soliciting public interest in the violations); Village Superma | 3 | 1996–2001 |
William v. American Ass'n of Blood Banks
green
2 sentences1999As we recently pointed out in Fraser v. Bovino, supra, 317 N.J.Super. at 38 , 721 A. 2d 20 , the Supreme Court in Snyder v. American Ass'n of Blood Banks, 144 N.J. 269, 296 , 676 A. 2d 1036 (1996), expressly left open the question of whether Noerr-Pennington immunity precludes tort liability. 1999As we recently pointed out in Fraser v. Bovino, supra, 317 N.J.Super. at 38 , 721 A. 2d 20 , the Supreme Court in Snyder v. American Ass'n of Blood Banks, 144 N.J. 269, 296 , 676 A. 2d 1036 (1996), expressly left open the question of whether Noerr-Pennington immunity precludes tort liability. | 2 | 1998–1999 |
Chabad-Lubavitch Michigan v. Schuchman
green
2 sentences2017In addition, and as a matter of first impression, we adopt the holding in Hanover 3201 Realty, LLC v. Village Supermarkets, Inc., 806 F.3d 162, 180 (3d Cir. 2015), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 2451 , 195 L. 2017In addition, and as a matter of first impression, we adopt the holding in Hanover 3201 Realty, LLC v. Village Supermarkets, Inc., 806 F.3d 162, 180 (3d Cir. 2015), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 2451 , 195 L. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Greenblatt v. Klein
green
2 sentences2017In addition, and as a matter of first impression, we adopt the holding in Hanover 3201 Realty, LLC v. Village Supermarkets, Inc., 806 F.3d 162, 180 (3d Cir. 2015), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 2451 , 195 L. 2017In addition, and as a matter of first impression, we adopt the holding in Hanover 3201 Realty, LLC v. Village Supermarkets, Inc., 806 F.3d 162, 180 (3d Cir. 2015), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 2451 , 195 L. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Havoco Of America, Ltd. v. Hollobow
green
2 sentences1996See, e.g., South Dakota v. Kansas City S. Indus., Inc., 880 F.2d 40 , 50-51 (8th Cir.1989) (finding that defendant’s litigation activities were protected under Noerr-Pennington doctrine against liability for tortious interference with contract); Brownsville Golden Age Nursing Home, Inc. v. Wells, 839 F. 2d 155, 160 (3d Cir.1988) (holding that “as a matter of law, [the individuals’] actions in calling [the nursing home’s] violations to the attention of state and federal authorities and eliciting public interest cannot serve as the basis of tort liability”); Havoco of America, Ltd. v. Hollobow, 1996See, e.g., South Dakota v. Kansas City S. Indus., Inc., 880 F. 2d 40 , 50-51 (8th Cir.1989) (finding that defendant's litigation activities were protected under Noerr-Pennington doctrine against liability for tortious interference with contract); Brownsville Golden Age Nursing Home, Inc. v. Wells, 839 F. 2d 155, 160 (3d Cir.1988) (holding that "as a matter of law, [the individuals'] actions in calling [the nursing home's] violations to the attention of state and federal authorities and eliciting public interest cannot serve as the basis of tort liability"); Havoco of America, Ltd. v. Hollobow, | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.