Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

Noerr–Pennington doctrine

Read a random definition: courts of the franchise

A quick definition of Noerr–Pennington doctrine:

The Noerr-Pennington doctrine is a rule that says companies can't get in trouble for working together to talk to the government. This means that if a group of companies wants to ask the government to change a law, they can do it without worrying about getting in trouble for breaking antitrust laws. The rule comes from two court cases, and it's based on the idea that the First Amendment protects people's right to talk to the government about what they think is important.

A more thorough explanation:

The Noerr–Pennington doctrine is a principle that protects companies from legal liability, especially under antitrust laws, when they join together to lobby the government. This principle is based on a series of Supreme Court cases, including Eastern R.R. Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc. and United Mine Workers v. Pennington.

For example, if two competing companies in the same industry join together to lobby the government for a change in regulations that would benefit their industry, they would be protected by the Noerr–Pennington doctrine. Even though their actions may have anti-competitive effects, they are shielded from legal liability because they are exercising their First Amendment right to petition the government.

Another example could be a group of farmers lobbying the government for subsidies or tax breaks. Even though these actions may benefit the farmers at the expense of taxpayers, they are protected by the Noerr–Pennington doctrine because they are exercising their right to petition the government.

These examples illustrate how the Noerr–Pennington doctrine protects companies and individuals from legal liability when they engage in lobbying activities. It is important to note that this doctrine only applies to lobbying activities and does not protect companies from liability for other anti-competitive behavior, such as price-fixing or market allocation.

no-duty doctrine | no evidence

Warning

Info

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
MIAMI A
[] AromaticTroubledDormouse
20:55
How does one know if they are UR1 or UR2?
[] AromaticTroubledDormouse
20:56
CONGRATS MACAQUE!
TY
got a random stanford email and almost had a heart attack
ALSO CONGRATS!
Congrats1!
21:15
Miami A, yall I'm so excited I could cry.
21:15
Feel like I can finally stop holding my breath!! Whew!!!
[] baddestbunny
22:16
every time I get accosted by a strange man who follows me around because my male coworkers were too busy talking to walk me back to my car I get closer to saying we need to bring back traditional gender roles
Dkk
22:32
Nice! @Macaque
Dkk
22:32
@Aromatic, Have to guess.
Dkk
22:33
That sucks @Bunny do you have to go to the hospital?
[] baddestbunny
22:40
I said accosted not assaulted
23:35
guys. my notre dame address just went long is this good or bad
1a2b3c4d26z
23:37
Oooooo me too
23:37
omg is this good or bad
Dkk
23:47
Idk if gender roles are gunna fix that then.
23:49
it looks like most people who applied in october last cycle didn't get a decision until january... does it even mean anything that our addresses went long??
hows ED 2 compared to ED 1?
Dkk
0:10
No idea
windyMagician
0:34
reporting live to say my ndls address also went long
does it mean anything ^
Dkk
2:21
NDLS and Fordham took a very long time last year. It's good info for people to know.
[] baddestbunny
4:29
let’s get after it boys and girls
Dkk
5:21
I gtg to bed soon.
Dkk
5:22
Big day today. Gunna be a crazy one. I will sleep through the first half.
good morning lsd it is 5 am EST
also jazzy my ndls address went long ages ago i sadly do not think it means anything
my stanford address also went long LOL i think at most it's an indicator it's under review
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.