Difference between revisions of "Noerr-Pennington immunity"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(a start) |
DavidB4-bot (talk | contribs) (→top: clean up & uniformity) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
There are exceptions to this immunity, such that antitrust liability will exist. For example, the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] has held that "misrepresentations, condoned in the political arena, are not immunized when used in the adjudicatory process." ''California Motor Transport'', 404 U.S. at 513. ''See, e.g.'', ''Cheminor Drugs, Ltd. v. Ethyl Corp.'', 168 F.3d 119 (3d Cir. 1999). | There are exceptions to this immunity, such that antitrust liability will exist. For example, the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] has held that "misrepresentations, condoned in the political arena, are not immunized when used in the adjudicatory process." ''California Motor Transport'', 404 U.S. at 513. ''See, e.g.'', ''Cheminor Drugs, Ltd. v. Ethyl Corp.'', 168 F.3d 119 (3d Cir. 1999). | ||
| − | [[Category: | + | [[Category:Antitrust]] |
Revision as of 16:44, July 13, 2016
Noerr-Pennington immunity is shields from antitrust liability lobbying of government and legitimate litigation.
There are exceptions to this immunity, such that antitrust liability will exist. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that "misrepresentations, condoned in the political arena, are not immunized when used in the adjudicatory process." California Motor Transport, 404 U.S. at 513. See, e.g., Cheminor Drugs, Ltd. v. Ethyl Corp., 168 F.3d 119 (3d Cir. 1999).