Campbell v. PMI Food Equipment Group, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing “federal courts have by analogy applied [Noerr-Pennington doctrine] to claims brought under both state and federal laws including common law claims of tortious interference”
• noting that “[a]lthough the Noerr-Pennington doctrine was initially recognized in the antitrust field, the federal courts have by analogy applied it to claims brought under both state and federal laws including common law claims of tortious interference.”
• finding government’s offering of tax incentives for a manufacturing company to open a new plant did not constitute significant encouragement
• noting the general rule against bringing a § 1983 claim against a private party
• “[S]ection 1983 does not . . . prohibit the conduct of private parties acting in their individual capacities.”
• “As a general rule, section 1983 does not . . . prohibit the conduct of private parties acting in their individual capacities.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).