Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1890–2016 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Colorado 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bill Johnson's Restaurants, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Boardgreen2 sentences2015All of these applications of the doctrine concerned petitioning the government, in one way or another, to affect legislative or administrative action. [13 In Bill Johnson's Restaurants, Inc. v. NLRB, 461 U.S. 731, 743-44 , 103 S.Ct. 2161 , 76 L.Ed.2d 277 (1983), the Court again applied the sham exception in the context of a labor dispute, barring the National Labor Relations Board from enjoining a restaurant owner's lawsuit against employees for harassing customers and threatening public safety while picketing. 2015All of these applications of the doctrine concerned petitioning the government, in one way or another, to affect legislative or administrative action. [13 In Bill Johnson's Restaurants, Inc. v. NLRB, 461 U.S. 731, 743-44 , 103 S.Ct. 2161 , 76 L.Ed.2d 277 (1983), the Court again applied the sham exception in the context of a labor dispute, barring the National Labor Relations Board from enjoining a restaurant owner's lawsuit against employees for harassing customers and threatening public safety while picketing. | 1 | 2 |
United Mine Workers v. Penningtongreen2 sentences2015Noerr, 365 U.S. at 136 , 81 S.Ct. 523 ; see also Pennington, 381 U.S. at 669-70 , 85 S.Ct. 1585 (exempting from antitrust liability lobbying efforts by mining interests directed at executive branch officials to raise minimum wage and eliminate competition by small mining companies). 2015Noerr, 365 U.S. at 136 , 81 S.Ct. 523 ; see also Pennington, 381 U.S. at 669-70 , 85 S.Ct. 1585 (exempting from antitrust liability lobbying efforts by mining interests directed at executive branch officials to raise minimum wage and eliminate competition by small mining companies). | 1 | 1 |
Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.green2 sentences2011See Prof'l Real Estate Investors, 508 U.S. at 60-61 , 113 S.Ct. 1920 (holding that consideration of the subjective prong of the sham exception is improper if the objective prong is not first satisfied). 2011See Prof'l Real Estate Investors, 508 U.S. at 60-61 , 113 S.Ct. 1920 (holding that consideration of the subjective prong of the sham exception is improper if the objective prong is not first satisfied). | 1 | 1 |
Landmarks Holding Corporation v. David W. Bermantgreen1 sentence1984See, e.g., MCI Communications Corp. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 708 F.2d at 1158 ; Landmarks Holding Corp. v. Bermant, 664 F.2d 891, 896 (2d Cir.1981). | 1 | 1 |
MCI Communications Corporation and MCI Telecommunications Corporation v. American Telephone and Telegraph Companygreen2 sentences1984E.g., MCI Communications Corp. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 708 F.2d 1081, 1153-55 (7th Cir.1983), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 234 , 78 L.Ed.2d 226 -27 (1983); Energy Conservation, Inc. v. Heliodyne, Inc., 698 F.2d 386 (9th Cir.1983); Clipper Exxpress v. Rocky Mountain Motor Tariff Bureau, Inc., 690 F.2d 1240 (9th Cir.1982), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 1234 -35, 75 L.Ed.2d 468 (1983); Fischel, Antitrust Liability For Attempts to Influence Government Action: The Basis and Limits of the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine, 45 U.Chi.L.Rev. 80, 108-10 (1977). 7 Nor does the sham except 1984E.g., MCI Communications Corp. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 708 F.2d 1081, 1153-55 (7th Cir.1983), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 234 , 78 L.Ed.2d 226 -27 (1983); Energy Conservation, Inc. v. Heliodyne, Inc., 698 F.2d 386 (9th Cir.1983); Clipper Exxpress v. Rocky Mountain Motor Tariff Bureau, Inc., 690 F.2d 1240 (9th Cir.1982), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 1234 -35, 75 L.Ed.2d 468 (1983); Fischel, Antitrust Liability For Attempts to Influence Government Action: The Basis and Limits of the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine, 45 U.Chi.L.Rev. 80, 108-10 (1977). 7 Nor does the sham except | 1 | 1 |
Otter Tail Power Co. v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1984E.g., Litton Systems, Inc. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 700 F.2d 785 , 809 n. 36 (2d Cir.1983), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 984 , 79 L.Ed.2d 220 (1984) 1984); Clipper Exxpress v. Rocky Mountain Motor Tariff Bureau, Inc., supra. Cf. Otter Tail Power Co. v. United States, 410 U.S. 366, 380 , 93 S.Ct. 1022, 1031 , 35 L.Ed.2d 359, 369 (1973), on remand, 360 F.Supp. 451 (D.Minn.1973), aff'd mem., 417 U.S. 901 , 94 S.Ct. 2594 , 41 L.Ed.2d 207 (1974) (noting that the filing of “repetitive lawsuits carrying the hallmark of insubstantial claims [falls] within the ‘mere sham’ exception,” 1984E.g., Litton Systems, Inc. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 700 F.2d 785 , 809 n. 36 (2d Cir.1983), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 984 , 79 L.Ed.2d 220 (1984) 1984); Clipper Exxpress v. Rocky Mountain Motor Tariff Bureau, Inc., supra. Cf. Otter Tail Power Co. v. United States, 410 U.S. 366, 380 , 93 S.Ct. 1022, 1031 , 35 L.Ed.2d 359, 369 (1973), on remand, 360 F.Supp. 451 (D.Minn.1973), aff'd mem., 417 U.S. 901 , 94 S.Ct. 2594 , 41 L.Ed.2d 207 (1974) (noting that the filing of “repetitive lawsuits carrying the hallmark of insubstantial claims [falls] within the ‘mere sham’ exception,” | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Protect Our Mountain Environment, Inc. v. District Court in & for the County of Jefferson
green
2 sentences2016Id. at 1368-69 . ¶38 A repetitious pattern of baseless litigation is not necessary for application of the sham exception. 2016Id. at 1368-69 . ¶38 A repetitious pattern of baseless litigation is not necessary for application of the sham exception. | 3 | 2011–2016 |
California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited
green
2 sentences2015And even in one of its strongest statements in support of a constitutional grounding for the right of access to agencies and courts, the Supreme Court indicated that various abuses of the administrative and judicial processes "cannot acquire immunity by seeking refuge under the umbrella of 'political expression.'" Cal. Motor, 404 U.S. at 512-13 , 92 S.Ct. 609 . "15 Whether petitioning the government for the redress of grievances, as protected by the First Amendment, includes every resort to "the channels and procedures of state and federal agencies and courts," id. at 511 , 92 S.Ct. 609 , rega 2015And even in one of its strongest statements in support of a constitutional grounding for the right of access to agencies and courts, the Supreme Court indicated that various abuses of the administrative and judicial processes "cannot acquire immunity by seeking refuge under the umbrella of 'political expression.'" Cal. Motor, 404 U.S. at 512-13 , 92 S.Ct. 609 . "15 Whether petitioning the government for the redress of grievances, as protected by the First Amendment, includes every resort to "the channels and procedures of state and federal agencies and courts," id. at 511 , 92 S.Ct. 609 , rega | 2 | 1984–2015 |
Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc.
green
2 sentences2015Noerr, 365 U.S. at 136 , 81 S.Ct. 523 ; see also Pennington, 381 U.S. at 669-70 , 85 S.Ct. 1585 (exempting from antitrust liability lobbying efforts by mining interests directed at executive branch officials to raise minimum wage and eliminate competition by small mining companies). 2015Noerr, 365 U.S. at 136 , 81 S.Ct. 523 ; see also Pennington, 381 U.S. at 669-70 , 85 S.Ct. 1585 (exempting from antitrust liability lobbying efforts by mining interests directed at executive branch officials to raise minimum wage and eliminate competition by small mining companies). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Read v. People
green
2 sentences2003These include People v. Shaw, 646 P.2d 375 (Colo.1982), Read v. People, 119 Colo. 506 , 205 P.2d 233 (1949) and Crawford v. People, 12 Colo. 290 , 20 P. 769 (1889). [2] A later Tenth Circuit case, Mullins v. Evans, 622 F.2d 504 (10th Cir.1980) labeled Mullins' trial in state court a sham in which the defense made every possible attempt to ensure the jury convicted him of first-degree murder. [3] Section 18-3-104(1)(c), C.R.S. (1973), the manslaughter statute which Mullins cites stated: "With intent to cause the death of a person other than himself, under circumstances where the act causing the 2003These include People v. Shaw, 646 P.2d 375 (Colo.1982), Read v. People, 119 Colo. 506 , 205 P.2d 233 (1949) and Crawford v. People, 12 Colo. 290 , 20 P. 769 (1889). [2] A later Tenth Circuit case, Mullins v. Evans, 622 F.2d 504 (10th Cir.1980) labeled Mullins' trial in state court a sham in which the defense made every possible attempt to ensure the jury convicted him of first-degree murder. [3] Section 18-3-104(1)(c), C.R.S. (1973), the manslaughter statute which Mullins cites stated: "With intent to cause the death of a person other than himself, under circumstances where the act causing the | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Crawford v. People
green
1 sentence2003These include People v. Shaw, 646 P.2d 375 (Colo.1982), Read v. People, 119 Colo. 506 , 205 P.2d 233 (1949) and Crawford v. People, 12 Colo. 290 , 20 P. 769 (1889). [2] A later Tenth Circuit case, Mullins v. Evans, 622 F.2d 504 (10th Cir.1980) labeled Mullins' trial in state court a sham in which the defense made every possible attempt to ensure the jury convicted him of first-degree murder. [3] Section 18-3-104(1)(c), C.R.S. (1973), the manslaughter statute which Mullins cites stated: "With intent to cause the death of a person other than himself, under circumstances where the act causing the | 1 | 2003–2003 |
People v. Shaw
green
1 sentence2003These include People v. Shaw, 646 P.2d 375 (Colo.1982), Read v. People, 119 Colo. 506 , 205 P.2d 233 (1949) and Crawford v. People, 12 Colo. 290 , 20 P. 769 (1889). [2] A later Tenth Circuit case, Mullins v. Evans, 622 F.2d 504 (10th Cir.1980) labeled Mullins' trial in state court a sham in which the defense made every possible attempt to ensure the jury convicted him of first-degree murder. [3] Section 18-3-104(1)(c), C.R.S. (1973), the manslaughter statute which Mullins cites stated: "With intent to cause the death of a person other than himself, under circumstances where the act causing the | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Robert Henry Mullins, and Cross-Appellant v. Ronald R. Evans, Superintendent, Colorado State Penitentiary, and Cross-Appellee
green
2 sentences2003A later Tenth Circuit case, Mullins v. Evans, 622 F.2d 504 (10th Cir.1980) labeled Mullins' trial in state court a sham in which the defense made every possible attempt to ensure the jury convicted him of first-degree murder. . 2003These include People v. Shaw, 646 P.2d 375 (Colo.1982), Read v. People, 119 Colo. 506 , 205 P.2d 233 (1949) and Crawford v. People, 12 Colo. 290 , 20 P. 769 (1889). [2] A later Tenth Circuit case, Mullins v. Evans, 622 F.2d 504 (10th Cir.1980) labeled Mullins' trial in state court a sham in which the defense made every possible attempt to ensure the jury convicted him of first-degree murder. [3] Section 18-3-104(1)(c), C.R.S. (1973), the manslaughter statute which Mullins cites stated: "With intent to cause the death of a person other than himself, under circumstances where the act causing the | 1 | 2003–2003 |
People v. Beach
green
2 sentences2003Defendant Favors sought an instruction on an intentional act, and this is not the same instruction that Mata-Medina requested. [5] People v. Cornell, 466 Mich. 335 , 646 N.W.2d 127 , 144 n. 19 (2002) calls for a "consideration of the `entire cause'" to determine whether an error is reversible, citing People v. Beach, 429 Mich. 450 , 418 N.W.2d 861 (1988). 2003Defendant Favors sought an instruction on an intentional act, and this is not the same instruction that Mata-Medina requested. [5] People v. Cornell, 466 Mich. 335 , 646 N.W.2d 127 , 144 n. 19 (2002) calls for a "consideration of the `entire cause'" to determine whether an error is reversible, citing People v. Beach, 429 Mich. 450 , 418 N.W.2d 861 (1988). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
People v. Cornell
green
2 sentences2003Defendant Favors sought an instruction on an intentional act, and this is not the same instruction that Mata-Medina requested. [5] People v. Cornell, 466 Mich. 335 , 646 N.W.2d 127 , 144 n. 19 (2002) calls for a "consideration of the `entire cause'" to determine whether an error is reversible, citing People v. Beach, 429 Mich. 450 , 418 N.W.2d 861 (1988). 2003Defendant Favors sought an instruction on an intentional act, and this is not the same instruction that Mata-Medina requested. [5] People v. Cornell, 466 Mich. 335 , 646 N.W.2d 127 , 144 n. 19 (2002) calls for a "consideration of the `entire cause'" to determine whether an error is reversible, citing People v. Beach, 429 Mich. 450 , 418 N.W.2d 861 (1988). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Clipper Exxpress v. Rocky Mountain Motor Tariff Bureau
green
2 sentences1984E.g., MCI Communications Corp. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 708 F.2d 1081, 1153-55 (7th Cir.1983), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 234 , 78 L.Ed.2d 226 -27 (1983); Energy Conservation, Inc. v. Heliodyne, Inc., 698 F.2d 386 (9th Cir.1983); Clipper Exxpress v. Rocky Mountain Motor Tariff Bureau, Inc., 690 F.2d 1240 (9th Cir.1982), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 1234 -35, 75 L.Ed.2d 468 (1983); Fischel, Antitrust Liability For Attempts to Influence Government Action: The Basis and Limits of the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine, 45 U.Chi.L.Rev. 80, 108-10 (1977). 7 Nor does the sham except 1984E.g., MCI Communications Corp. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 708 F.2d 1081, 1153-55 (7th Cir.1983), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 234 , 78 L.Ed.2d 226 -27 (1983); Energy Conservation, Inc. v. Heliodyne, Inc., 698 F.2d 386 (9th Cir.1983); Clipper Exxpress v. Rocky Mountain Motor Tariff Bureau, Inc., 690 F.2d 1240 (9th Cir.1982), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 1234 -35, 75 L.Ed.2d 468 (1983); Fischel, Antitrust Liability For Attempts to Influence Government Action: The Basis and Limits of the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine, 45 U.Chi.L.Rev. 80, 108-10 (1977). 7 Nor does the sham except | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Energy Conservation, Inc. v. Heliodyne, Inc.
green
2 sentences1984E.g., MCI Communications Corp. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 708 F.2d 1081, 1153-55 (7th Cir.1983), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 234 , 78 L.Ed.2d 226 -27 (1983); Energy Conservation, Inc. v. Heliodyne, Inc., 698 F.2d 386 (9th Cir.1983); Clipper Exxpress v. Rocky Mountain Motor Tariff Bureau, Inc., 690 F.2d 1240 (9th Cir.1982), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 1234 -35, 75 L.Ed.2d 468 (1983); Fischel, Antitrust Liability For Attempts to Influence Government Action: The Basis and Limits of the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine, 45 U.Chi.L.Rev. 80, 108-10 (1977). 7 Nor does the sham except 1984E.g., MCI Communications Corp. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 708 F.2d 1081, 1153-55 (7th Cir.1983), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 234 , 78 L.Ed.2d 226 -27 (1983); Energy Conservation, Inc. v. Heliodyne, Inc., 698 F.2d 386 (9th Cir.1983); Clipper Exxpress v. Rocky Mountain Motor Tariff Bureau, Inc., 690 F.2d 1240 (9th Cir.1982), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 1234 -35, 75 L.Ed.2d 468 (1983); Fischel, Antitrust Liability For Attempts to Influence Government Action: The Basis and Limits of the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine, 45 U.Chi.L.Rev. 80, 108-10 (1977). 7 Nor does the sham except | 1 | 1984–1984 |
cluster 414451
green
1 sentence1984E.g., Litton Systems, Inc. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 700 F.2d 785 , 809 n. 36 (2d Cir.1983), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 984 , 79 L.Ed.2d 220 (1984) 1984); Clipper Exxpress v. Rocky Mountain Motor Tariff Bureau, Inc., supra. Cf. Otter Tail Power Co. v. United States, 410 U.S. 366, 380 , 93 S.Ct. 1022, 1031 , 35 L.Ed.2d 359, 369 (1973), on remand, 360 F.Supp. 451 (D.Minn.1973), aff'd mem., 417 U.S. 901 , 94 S.Ct. 2594 , 41 L.Ed.2d 207 (1974) (noting that the filing of “repetitive lawsuits carrying the hallmark of insubstantial claims [falls] within the ‘mere sham’ exception,” | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Holloway v. Estelle
green
2 sentences1984E.g., MCI Communications Corp. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 708 F.2d 1081, 1153-55 (7th Cir.1983), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 234 , 78 L.Ed.2d 226 -27 (1983); Energy Conservation, Inc. v. Heliodyne, Inc., 698 F.2d 386 (9th Cir.1983); Clipper Exxpress v. Rocky Mountain Motor Tariff Bureau, Inc., 690 F.2d 1240 (9th Cir.1982), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 1234 -35, 75 L.Ed.2d 468 (1983); Fischel, Antitrust Liability For Attempts to Influence Government Action: The Basis and Limits of the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine, 45 U.Chi.L.Rev. 80, 108-10 (1977). 7 Nor does the sham except 1984E.g., MCI Communications Corp. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 708 F.2d 1081, 1153-55 (7th Cir.1983), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 234 , 78 L.Ed.2d 226 -27 (1983); Energy Conservation, Inc. v. Heliodyne, Inc., 698 F.2d 386 (9th Cir.1983); Clipper Exxpress v. Rocky Mountain Motor Tariff Bureau, Inc., 690 F.2d 1240 (9th Cir.1982), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 1234 -35, 75 L.Ed.2d 468 (1983); Fischel, Antitrust Liability For Attempts to Influence Government Action: The Basis and Limits of the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine, 45 U.Chi.L.Rev. 80, 108-10 (1977). 7 Nor does the sham except | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Nerison v. Solem
green
1 sentence1984E.g., Litton Systems, Inc. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 700 F.2d 785 , 809 n. 36 (2d Cir.1983), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 984 , 79 L.Ed.2d 220 (1984) 1984); Clipper Exxpress v. Rocky Mountain Motor Tariff Bureau, Inc., supra. Cf. Otter Tail Power Co. v. United States, 410 U.S. 366, 380 , 93 S.Ct. 1022, 1031 , 35 L.Ed.2d 359, 369 (1973), on remand, 360 F.Supp. 451 (D.Minn.1973), aff'd mem., 417 U.S. 901 , 94 S.Ct. 2594 , 41 L.Ed.2d 207 (1974) (noting that the filing of “repetitive lawsuits carrying the hallmark of insubstantial claims [falls] within the ‘mere sham’ exception,” | 1 | 1984–1984 |
American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Litton System, Inc.
green
1 sentence1984E.g., Litton Systems, Inc. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 700 F.2d 785 , 809 n. 36 (2d Cir.1983), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 984 , 79 L.Ed.2d 220 (1984) 1984); Clipper Exxpress v. Rocky Mountain Motor Tariff Bureau, Inc., supra. Cf. Otter Tail Power Co. v. United States, 410 U.S. 366, 380 , 93 S.Ct. 1022, 1031 , 35 L.Ed.2d 359, 369 (1973), on remand, 360 F.Supp. 451 (D.Minn.1973), aff'd mem., 417 U.S. 901 , 94 S.Ct. 2594 , 41 L.Ed.2d 207 (1974) (noting that the filing of “repetitive lawsuits carrying the hallmark of insubstantial claims [falls] within the ‘mere sham’ exception,” | 1 | 1984–1984 |
United States v. Otter Tail Power Company
green
1 sentence1984E.g., Litton Systems, Inc. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 700 F.2d 785 , 809 n. 36 (2d Cir.1983), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 984 , 79 L.Ed.2d 220 (1984) 1984); Clipper Exxpress v. Rocky Mountain Motor Tariff Bureau, Inc., supra. Cf. Otter Tail Power Co. v. United States, 410 U.S. 366, 380 , 93 S.Ct. 1022, 1031 , 35 L.Ed.2d 359, 369 (1973), on remand, 360 F.Supp. 451 (D.Minn.1973), aff'd mem., 417 U.S. 901 , 94 S.Ct. 2594 , 41 L.Ed.2d 207 (1974) (noting that the filing of “repetitive lawsuits carrying the hallmark of insubstantial claims [falls] within the ‘mere sham’ exception,” | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Cale J. Holder, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Indiana v. Arthur Banks
green
1 sentence1984E.g., Litton Systems, Inc. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 700 F.2d 785 , 809 n. 36 (2d Cir.1983), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 984 , 79 L.Ed.2d 220 (1984) 1984); Clipper Exxpress v. Rocky Mountain Motor Tariff Bureau, Inc., supra. Cf. Otter Tail Power Co. v. United States, 410 U.S. 366, 380 , 93 S.Ct. 1022, 1031 , 35 L.Ed.2d 359, 369 (1973), on remand, 360 F.Supp. 451 (D.Minn.1973), aff'd mem., 417 U.S. 901 , 94 S.Ct. 2594 , 41 L.Ed.2d 207 (1974) (noting that the filing of “repetitive lawsuits carrying the hallmark of insubstantial claims [falls] within the ‘mere sham’ exception,” | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Carmack v. Buckner
green
1 sentence1984E.g., Litton Systems, Inc. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 700 F.2d 785 , 809 n. 36 (2d Cir.1983), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 984 , 79 L.Ed.2d 220 (1984) 1984); Clipper Exxpress v. Rocky Mountain Motor Tariff Bureau, Inc., supra. Cf. Otter Tail Power Co. v. United States, 410 U.S. 366, 380 , 93 S.Ct. 1022, 1031 , 35 L.Ed.2d 359, 369 (1973), on remand, 360 F.Supp. 451 (D.Minn.1973), aff'd mem., 417 U.S. 901 , 94 S.Ct. 2594 , 41 L.Ed.2d 207 (1974) (noting that the filing of “repetitive lawsuits carrying the hallmark of insubstantial claims [falls] within the ‘mere sham’ exception,” | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Church of Scientology Mission v. Christofferson
green
2 sentences1984E.g., MCI Communications Corp. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 708 F.2d 1081, 1153-55 (7th Cir.1983), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 234 , 78 L.Ed.2d 226 -27 (1983); Energy Conservation, Inc. v. Heliodyne, Inc., 698 F.2d 386 (9th Cir.1983); Clipper Exxpress v. Rocky Mountain Motor Tariff Bureau, Inc., 690 F.2d 1240 (9th Cir.1982), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 1234 -35, 75 L.Ed.2d 468 (1983); Fischel, Antitrust Liability For Attempts to Influence Government Action: The Basis and Limits of the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine, 45 U.Chi.L.Rev. 80, 108-10 (1977). 7 Nor does the sham except 1984E.g., MCI Communications Corp. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 708 F.2d 1081, 1153-55 (7th Cir.1983), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 234 , 78 L.Ed.2d 226 -27 (1983); Energy Conservation, Inc. v. Heliodyne, Inc., 698 F.2d 386 (9th Cir.1983); Clipper Exxpress v. Rocky Mountain Motor Tariff Bureau, Inc., 690 F.2d 1240 (9th Cir.1982), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 1234 -35, 75 L.Ed.2d 468 (1983); Fischel, Antitrust Liability For Attempts to Influence Government Action: The Basis and Limits of the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine, 45 U.Chi.L.Rev. 80, 108-10 (1977). 7 Nor does the sham except | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Haas v. Hash
green
2 sentences1984E.g., MCI Communications Corp. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 708 F.2d 1081, 1153-55 (7th Cir.1983), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 234 , 78 L.Ed.2d 226 -27 (1983); Energy Conservation, Inc. v. Heliodyne, Inc., 698 F.2d 386 (9th Cir.1983); Clipper Exxpress v. Rocky Mountain Motor Tariff Bureau, Inc., 690 F.2d 1240 (9th Cir.1982), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 1234 -35, 75 L.Ed.2d 468 (1983); Fischel, Antitrust Liability For Attempts to Influence Government Action: The Basis and Limits of the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine, 45 U.Chi.L.Rev. 80, 108-10 (1977). 7 Nor does the sham except 1984E.g., MCI Communications Corp. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 708 F.2d 1081, 1153-55 (7th Cir.1983), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 234 , 78 L.Ed.2d 226 -27 (1983); Energy Conservation, Inc. v. Heliodyne, Inc., 698 F.2d 386 (9th Cir.1983); Clipper Exxpress v. Rocky Mountain Motor Tariff Bureau, Inc., 690 F.2d 1240 (9th Cir.1982), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 1234 -35, 75 L.Ed.2d 468 (1983); Fischel, Antitrust Liability For Attempts to Influence Government Action: The Basis and Limits of the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine, 45 U.Chi.L.Rev. 80, 108-10 (1977). 7 Nor does the sham except | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Lea v. South Atlantic Pecan Co.
green
2 sentences1984E.g., MCI Communications Corp. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 708 F.2d 1081, 1153-55 (7th Cir.1983), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 234 , 78 L.Ed.2d 226 -27 (1983); Energy Conservation, Inc. v. Heliodyne, Inc., 698 F.2d 386 (9th Cir.1983); Clipper Exxpress v. Rocky Mountain Motor Tariff Bureau, Inc., 690 F.2d 1240 (9th Cir.1982), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 1234 -35, 75 L.Ed.2d 468 (1983); Fischel, Antitrust Liability For Attempts to Influence Government Action: The Basis and Limits of the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine, 45 U.Chi.L.Rev. 80, 108-10 (1977). 7 Nor does the sham except 1984E.g., MCI Communications Corp. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 708 F.2d 1081, 1153-55 (7th Cir.1983), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 234 , 78 L.Ed.2d 226 -27 (1983); Energy Conservation, Inc. v. Heliodyne, Inc., 698 F.2d 386 (9th Cir.1983); Clipper Exxpress v. Rocky Mountain Motor Tariff Bureau, Inc., 690 F.2d 1240 (9th Cir.1982), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 1234 -35, 75 L.Ed.2d 468 (1983); Fischel, Antitrust Liability For Attempts to Influence Government Action: The Basis and Limits of the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine, 45 U.Chi.L.Rev. 80, 108-10 (1977). 7 Nor does the sham except | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Brown v. Lewis
green
1 sentence1890In Brown v. Lewis, 10 Ind. 232 , it was decided that “if an answer is valid on its face, and no facts exist peculiarly within the knowledge of the court showing it to be a sham defense, it should not be stricken out upon affidavit of its falsity.” But in a subsequent case, it appearing that the defendant in response to interrogatories conceded his answer to the complaint to be false, it was held that it should be stricken out as sham. | 1 | 1890–1890 |
Beeson v. McConnaha
green
1 sentence1890Beeson v. McConnaha, 12 Ind. 420 . | 1 | 1890–1890 |
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.