sham exception (Michigan) · Go Syfert
← Michigan issues

sham exception in Michigan

6 Michigan opinions name it 1 courts 1975–2001 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 (3)

CaseFollowedCited
Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc.green
scotus · 1961 · cited in 2 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 1993–2001
2 sentences

2001Noerr, supra at 144 . *732 Defendants further argue that, where government action effects some sort of injury, the government is the proximate cause of that injury, not the private parties who may have influenced the government.

1993Noerr, supra, p 144; First Natl Bank of Omaha v Marquette Natl Bank of Minneapolis, 482 F Supp 514, 519 (D Minn, 1979), aff'd 636 F2d 195 (CA 8, 1980), cert den 450 US 1042 (1981).

12
City of Columbia v. Omni Outdoor Advertising, Inc.green
scotus · 1991 · cited in 1 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 1993–1993
2 sentences

1993City of Columbia v Omni Outdoor Advertising, Inc, 499 US —; 111 S Ct 1344, 1354 ; 113 L Ed 2d 382, 398 (1991).

1993City of Columbia v Omni Outdoor Advertising, Inc, 499 US —; 111 S Ct 1344, 1354 ; 113 L Ed 2d 382, 398 (1991).

11
First Nat. Bank of Omaha v. Marquette Nat. Bankgreen
mnd · 1979 · cited in 1 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 1993–1993
1 sentence

1993Noerr, supra, p 144; First Natl Bank of Omaha v Marquette Natl Bank of Minneapolis, 482 F Supp 514, 519 (D Minn, 1979), aff'd 636 F2d 195 (CA 8, 1980), cert den 450 US 1042 (1981).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (7)

CaseCitedYears
People v. Degraffenreid green
michctapp · 1969
2 sentences

1975The circumstances of this case do not justify reversal under either the sham standard or the serious error standard of People v Degraffenreid, *725 19 Mich App 702 ; 173 NW2d 317 (1969).

1975The circumstances of this case do not justify reversal under either the sham standard or the serious error standard of People v Degraffenreid, *725 19 Mich App 702 ; 173 NW2d 317 (1969).

21975–1975
First National Bank v. Marquette National Bank green
scotus · 1981
1 sentence

1993Noerr, supra, p 144; First Natl Bank of Omaha v Marquette Natl Bank of Minneapolis, 482 F Supp 514, 519 (D Minn, 1979), aff'd 636 F2d 195 (CA 8, 1980), cert den 450 US 1042 (1981).

11993–1993
Sage International, Ltd. v. Cadillac Gage Co. green
mied · 1981
1 sentence

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.

11984–1984
Sierra Club v. Butz green
cand · 1972
1 sentence

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.

11984–1984
Church of Scientology Mission v. Christofferson green
scotus · 1983
1 sentence

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.

11984–1984
Haas v. Hash green
scotus · 1983
1 sentence

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.

11984–1984
Rizzo v. Kretschmer green
mich · 1973
2 sentences

1975Rizzo v Kretschmer, 389 Mich 363 ; 207 NW2d 316 (1973).

1975Rizzo v Kretschmer, 389 Mich 363 ; 207 NW2d 316 (1973).

11975–1975

Where else courts name it

MS 20 (1995–2023) NY 17 (1896–2026) CA 16 (1881–2024) IL 9 (1929–2010) CO 8 (1890–2016) NM 8 (2017–2024) MI 6 (1975–2001) TX 5 (1997–2022) CT 5 (1997–2025) RI 4 (1996–2013) FL 3 (1993–2026) KY 3 (2004–2022) WI 3 (1896–1992) DE 3 (2021–2025) AK 3 (1995–2009) WV 2 (1981–1981) MD 2 (1983–2010) ME 2 (1983–2001) VA 2 (1984–2002) NC 2 (2003–2019) HI 2 (1953–1999) LA 2 (2009–2009) AL 2 (2009–2009)

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