Talk:Noerr–Pennington doctrine

Removed analogies to tort
I removed the following paragraph from the article:
 * The lower courts have generally applied the Noerr-Pennington doctrine or an analagous principle to other situations where a party is sued for attempting to influence government officials to take official action. For example, land developers and other business interests sometimes bring tort suits for e.g. intentional interference with contractual relations against community members who have opposed their building permits. These "SLAPP suits" are frequently dismissed on First Amendment petition clause grounds with or without cites to the Noerr-Pennington cases. The Supreme Court has not definitively spoken on this practice.

It seems to be outside the scope of the topic. The Noerr-Pennington doctrine only applies to antitrust cases, not to tort cases or other frivolous lawsuits, and the "sham proceedings" exception should only be discussed as it applies to the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. The preceeding paragraph might be better suited to the abuse of process article. -- BD2412 talk 17:15, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, that is incorrect. Noerr-Pennington has been applied to abuse of process suits. Brownsville Golden Age Nursing Home, Inc. v. Wells, 839 F.2d 155, 159-60 (3d Cir.1988).