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.
6 New York opinions name it 3 courts 2005–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York 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 |
|---|---|---|
I.G. Second Generation Partners, L.P. v. Readegreen2 sentences2020"The filing of litigation falls within the protection of the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, which has been applied to bar claims of tortious interference predicated on the commencement of litigation" ( I.G. , 17 AD3d at 208 ). 2012Second Generation Partners, L.P. v Duane Reade, 17 AD3d 206, 208 [1st Dept 2005]; Concourse Nursing Home v Engelstein, 278 AD2d 35 [1st Dept 2000].) In other words, the “filing of litigation falls within the protection of the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, which has been applied to bar claims of tortious interference predicated on the commencement of litigation.” (I.G. | 2 | 3 |
Aircapital Cablevision, Inc. v. Starlink Communications Group, Inc.green2 sentences2012The Icahn plaintiffs offer no support for their assertion that 1989’s filing of a Schedule 13D with the SEC in 2010 is not entitled to protection under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine because the document was simply a “disclosure document.” The 13D was filed because the 2010 litigation was commenced, and thus, it was incidental to that litigation and falls squarely within the protection of the Noerr-Pennington doctrine (see Aircapital Cablevision, Inc. v Starlink Communications Group, Inc., 634 F Supp 316, 323-324 [D Kan 1986] [finding publicity that was “(c)learly . . . bully-type conduct” that 2012The Icahn plaintiffs offer no support for their assertion that 1989’s filing of a Schedule 13D with the SEC in 2010 is not entitled to protection under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine because the document was simply a “disclosure document.” The 13D was filed because the 2010 litigation was commenced, and thus, it was incidental to that litigation and falls squarely within the protection of the Noerr-Pennington doctrine (see Aircapital Cablevision, Inc. v Starlink Communications Group, Inc., 634 F Supp 316, 323-324 [D Kan 1986] [finding publicity that was “(c)learly . . . bully-type conduct” that | 2 | 2 |
Freeman v. Lasky, Haas & Cohlergreen1 sentence2025Second Generation Partners, L.P. v Reade, 17 AD3d 206, 208 [1st Dept 2005]), as does the interposition of counterclaims in a pending action (see Sosa v DIRECTV, Inc., 437 F3d 923, 933 [9th Cir 2006]; Freeman v Lasky, Haas & Cohler, 410 F3d 1180, 1184 [9th Cir 2005]; Porous Media Corp. v Pall Corp., 186 F3d 1077 , 1080 n 4 [8th Cir 1999], affg No. 97-2084 [ADM/AJB], 1998 US Dist LEXIS 23651 , *4-8 [D Minn., Jun. 3, 1998]; Warner v Sims Metal Mgt., Ltd., No. C-13-02190 WHA, 2013 US Dist LEXIS 151815 , *7- 8, 2013 WL 5754403 , *3 [ND Cal., Oct. 21, 2013]). | 1 | 1 |
Sosa v. DIRECTV, Inc.green1 sentence2025Second Generation Partners, L.P. v Reade, 17 AD3d 206, 208 [1st Dept 2005]), as does the interposition of counterclaims in a pending action (see Sosa v DIRECTV, Inc., 437 F3d 923, 933 [9th Cir 2006]; Freeman v Lasky, Haas & Cohler, 410 F3d 1180, 1184 [9th Cir 2005]; Porous Media Corp. v Pall Corp., 186 F3d 1077 , 1080 n 4 [8th Cir 1999], affg No. 97-2084 [ADM/AJB], 1998 US Dist LEXIS 23651 , *4-8 [D Minn., Jun. 3, 1998]; Warner v Sims Metal Mgt., Ltd., No. C-13-02190 WHA, 2013 US Dist LEXIS 151815 , *7- 8, 2013 WL 5754403 , *3 [ND Cal., Oct. 21, 2013]). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Concourse Nursing Home v. Engelstein
green
2 sentences2012Second Generation Partners, L.P. v Duane Reade, 17 AD3d 206, 208 [1st Dept 2005]; Concourse Nursing Home v Engelstein, 278 AD2d 35 [1st Dept 2000].) In other words, the “filing of litigation falls within the protection of the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, which has been applied to bar claims of tortious interference predicated on the commencement of litigation.” (I.G. 2005Corp. v Loral Corp., 974 F Supp 345 [SD NY 1997]; Concourse Nursing Home v Engelstein, 278 AD2d 35 [2000]). | 2 | 2005–2012 |
Porous Media Corporation v. Pall Corporation
green
1 sentence2025Second Generation Partners, L.P. v Reade, 17 AD3d 206, 208 [1st Dept 2005]), as does the interposition of counterclaims in a pending action (see Sosa v DIRECTV, Inc., 437 F3d 923, 933 [9th Cir 2006]; Freeman v Lasky, Haas & Cohler, 410 F3d 1180, 1184 [9th Cir 2005]; Porous Media Corp. v Pall Corp., 186 F3d 1077 , 1080 n 4 [8th Cir 1999], affg No. 97-2084 [ADM/AJB], 1998 US Dist LEXIS 23651 , *4-8 [D Minn., Jun. 3, 1998]; Warner v Sims Metal Mgt., Ltd., No. C-13-02190 WHA, 2013 US Dist LEXIS 151815 , *7- 8, 2013 WL 5754403 , *3 [ND Cal., Oct. 21, 2013]). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Matsushita Electronics Corp. v. Loral Corp.
green
1 sentence2005Corp. v Loral Corp., 974 F Supp 345 [SD NY 1997]; Concourse Nursing Home v Engelstein, 278 AD2d 35 [2000]). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.