6 Kentucky opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2025 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Kentucky 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 |
|---|---|---|
Simpson v. Laytartgreen2 sentences2022Three years later, this Court acknowledged the Noerr-Pennington doctrine in Simpson v. Layhart, 962 S.W.2d 392, 396 (Ky. 1998), an abuse of process case arising out of a zoning matter, but declined to address the doctrine given the propriety of summary judgment on the abuse of process claim on other grounds. 2004Later, the Kentucky Supreme Court mentioned the Noerr-Pennington doctrine in *415 Simpson v. Laytart, Ky., 962 S.W.2d 392, 396 (1998). | 2 | 2 |
Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc.green2 sentences2022Later, in California Motor Transportation Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 508, 510 (1972), the Court held that “the right to petition extends to all departments of the Government.” The Court also reiterated that there is no immunity where a challenged action is “a mere sham to cover what is actually nothing more than an attempt to interfere directly with the business relationships of a competitor . . . .” Id. at 511 (quoting Noerr, 365 U.S. at 144 ). 10 The Court elaborated on the sham exception to the Noerr-Pennington immunity in PRE, 508 U.S. at 50 . 2022Later, in California Motor Transportation Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 508, 510 (1972), the Court held that “the right to petition extends to all departments of the Government.” The Court also reiterated that there is no immunity where a challenged action is “a mere sham to cover what is actually nothing more than an attempt to interfere directly with the business relationships of a competitor . . . .” Id. at 511 (quoting Noerr, 365 U.S. at 144 ). 10 The Court elaborated on the sham exception to the Noerr-Pennington immunity in PRE, 508 U.S. at 50 . | 1 | 4 |
Grand Communities, Ltd. v. Stepnergreen2 sentences2025See Grand Communities, Ltd. v. Stepner, 170 S.W.3d 411 (Ky. App. 2004). 4 “SLAPP” is an acronym for Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, characterized as litigation filed with the intent “to harass, intimidate or silence those individuals who use their right to petition.” -13- Despite this, in his brief, Bell somehow conflates the Kentucky Supreme Court’s discussion of the Noerr-Pennington doctrine with a holding that Kentucky’s UPEPA statutes “afford immunity from civil liability to anyone communicating information to any branch of the government.” (Emphasis added.) Despite the UP 2025See Grand Communities, Ltd. v. Stepner, 170 S.W.3d 411 (Ky. App. 2004). 4 “SLAPP” is an acronym for Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, characterized as litigation filed with the intent “to harass, intimidate or silence those individuals who use their right to petition.” -13- Despite this, in his brief, Bell somehow conflates the Kentucky Supreme Court’s discussion of the Noerr-Pennington doctrine with a holding that Kentucky’s UPEPA statutes “afford immunity from civil liability to anyone communicating information to any branch of the government.” (Emphasis added.) Despite the UP | 1 | 3 |
Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.green2 sentences2022Later, in California Motor Transportation Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 508, 510 (1972), the Court held that “the right to petition extends to all departments of the Government.” The Court also reiterated that there is no immunity where a challenged action is “a mere sham to cover what is actually nothing more than an attempt to interfere directly with the business relationships of a competitor . . . .” Id. at 511 (quoting Noerr, 365 U.S. at 144 ). 10 The Court elaborated on the sham exception to the Noerr-Pennington immunity in PRE, 508 U.S. at 50 . 2022Later, in California Motor Transportation Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 508, 510 (1972), the Court held that “the right to petition extends to all departments of the Government.” The Court also reiterated that there is no immunity where a challenged action is “a mere sham to cover what is actually nothing more than an attempt to interfere directly with the business relationships of a competitor . . . .” Id. at 511 (quoting Noerr, 365 U.S. at 144 ). 10 The Court elaborated on the sham exception to the Noerr-Pennington immunity in PRE, 508 U.S. at 50 . | 1 | 2 |
California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimitedgreen2 sentences2022Later, in California Motor Transportation Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 508, 510 (1972), the Court held that “the right to petition extends to all departments of the Government.” The Court also reiterated that there is no immunity where a challenged action is “a mere sham to cover what is actually nothing more than an attempt to interfere directly with the business relationships of a competitor . . . .” Id. at 511 (quoting Noerr, 365 U.S. at 144 ). 10 The Court elaborated on the sham exception to the Noerr-Pennington immunity in PRE, 508 U.S. at 50 . 2022Later, in California Motor Transportation Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 508, 510 (1972), the Court held that “the right to petition extends to all departments of the Government.” The Court also reiterated that there is no immunity where a challenged action is “a mere sham to cover what is actually nothing more than an attempt to interfere directly with the business relationships of a competitor . . . .” Id. at 511 (quoting Noerr, 365 U.S. at 144 ). 10 The Court elaborated on the sham exception to the Noerr-Pennington immunity in PRE, 508 U.S. at 50 . | 1 | 2 |
Zeller v. Consolinigreen2 sentences2022In Zeller v. Consolini, 758 A.2d 376, 382 (Conn. App. 2000), the court applied the Noerr-Pennington doctrine to bar a developer’s claims for tortious interference against nearby landowners who challenged the development of a mall. 2022In Zeller v. Consolini, 758 A.2d 376, 382 (Conn. App. 2000), the court applied the Noerr-Pennington doctrine to bar a developer’s claims for tortious interference against nearby landowners who challenged the development of a mall. | 1 | 1 |
CSMN Investments v. Cordillera Metropolitangreen1 sentence2022Dist., 956 F.3d 1276, 1283 (10th Cir. 2020). 11Public Expression Protection Act, UNIFORM LAW COMMISSION (Feb. 28, 2022), https://www.uniformlaws.org/committees/community-home?Community Key=4f486460-199c-49d7-9fac-05570be1e7b1. 18 jurisdictions (including active consideration in Kentucky), underscores that protection of the First Amendment right to petition is crucial and requires vigilance. | 1 | 1 |
cluster 22498green1 sentence2020See Bayou Fleet, Inc. v. Alexander, 234 F.3d 852, 860 (5th Cir. 2000). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kentucky. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United Mine Workers v. Pennington
green
2 sentences2022Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc., 365 U.S. 127 (1961) and United Mine Workers of America v. Pennington, 381 U.S. 657 (1965). 2 to commercial and the approval of its general development plan. 2022Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc., 365 U.S. 127 (1961) and United Mine Workers of America v. Pennington, 381 U.S. 657 (1965). 2 to commercial and the approval of its general development plan. | 3 | 2004–2022 |
Eastern Kentucky Resources v. Arnett
green
2 sentences2020In Eastern Kentucky Resources v. Arnett, 892 S.W.2d 617 (Ky. App. 1995), a panel of this Court noted that other federal and state courts have applied the Noerr- Pennington doctrine to petitioning activities such as zoning questions and other -11- activities outside the antitrust field. 2020In Eastern Kentucky Resources v. Arnett, 892 S.W.2d 617 (Ky. App. 1995), a panel of this Court noted that other federal and state courts have applied the Noerr- Pennington doctrine to petitioning activities such as zoning questions and other -11- activities outside the antitrust field. | 3 | 2004–2022 |
Igen International, Incorporated v. Roche Diagnostics Gmbh
green
2 sentences2024Other jurisdictions have applied the doctrine to private litigation, and “although originally developed in the antitrust context, the doctrine has now universally been applied to business torts.” IGEN Int’l, Inc. v. Roche Diagnostics GmbH, 335 F.3d 303 , 310 (4th Cir. 2003). 2024Other jurisdictions have applied the doctrine to private litigation, and “although originally developed in the antitrust context, the doctrine has now universally been applied to business torts.” IGEN Int’l, Inc. v. Roche Diagnostics GmbH, 335 F.3d 303 , 310 (4th Cir. 2003). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Anderson Development Co. v. Tobias
green
2 sentences2022Id. at 332 . 2022Id. at 332 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Cove Road Development v. Western Cranston Industrial Park Associates
green
2 sentences2022Id. at 1239 . 8 We note that the Court of Appeals recently addressed the Noerr-Pennington doctrine in Willow Grande, LLC v. Cherokee Triangle Association, Inc., 2020 WL 4910127 , *1 (Ky. App. August 21, 2020). 2022Id. at 1239 . 8 We note that the Court of Appeals recently addressed the Noerr-Pennington doctrine in Willow Grande, LLC v. Cherokee Triangle Association, Inc., 2020 WL 4910127 , *1 (Ky. App. August 21, 2020). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.
green
2 sentences2022The Noerr-Pennington doctrine stands for the proposition that “defendants are immune from antitrust liability for engaging in conduct (including litigation) aimed at influencing decision[-]making by the government.” Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 572 U.S. 545, 556 , 134 S. Ct. 1749, 1757 , 188 L. 2022The Noerr-Pennington doctrine stands for the proposition that “defendants are immune from antitrust liability for engaging in conduct (including litigation) aimed at influencing decision[-]making by the government.” Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 572 U.S. 545, 556 , 134 S. Ct. 1749, 1757 , 188 L. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Octane Fitness, LLC v. Icon Health
green
2 sentences2022The Noerr-Pennington doctrine stands for the proposition that “defendants are immune from antitrust liability for engaging in conduct (including litigation) aimed at influencing decision[-]making by the government.” Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 572 U.S. 545, 556 , 134 S. Ct. 1749, 1757 , 188 L. 2022The Noerr-Pennington doctrine stands for the proposition that “defendants are immune from antitrust liability for engaging in conduct (including litigation) aimed at influencing decision[-]making by the government.” Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 572 U.S. 545, 556 , 134 S. Ct. 1749, 1757 , 188 L. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Bourbon County Joint Planning Commission v. Simpson
green
2 sentences2020Id. at 46 . -14- The decision in Simpson predates Stepner’s adoption of the Noerr- Pennington doctrine.5 Since the First Amendment protects the right of citizens to petition for redress of grievances, the doctrine generally provides immunity from legal action to persons who bring a zoning appeal to induce the passage or enforcement of law or to solicit governmental action. 2020Id. at 46 . -14- The decision in Simpson predates Stepner’s adoption of the Noerr- Pennington doctrine.5 Since the First Amendment protects the right of citizens to petition for redress of grievances, the doctrine generally provides immunity from legal action to persons who bring a zoning appeal to induce the passage or enforcement of law or to solicit governmental action. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
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.