From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bath Petroleum Storage v. Market Hub

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Oct 11, 2000
229 F.3d 1135 (2d Cir. 2000)

Summary

holding that Noerr-Pennington immunity is applicable to state law claims for tortious interference

Summary of this case from EDF Renewable Development, Inc. v. Tritec Real Estate Co.

Opinion

No. 00-7302.

October 11, 2000.

Appeal from W.D.N.Y.


Affirmed.


Summaries of

Bath Petroleum Storage v. Market Hub

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Oct 11, 2000
229 F.3d 1135 (2d Cir. 2000)

holding that Noerr-Pennington immunity is applicable to state law claims for tortious interference

Summary of this case from EDF Renewable Development, Inc. v. Tritec Real Estate Co.

affirming dismissal because "Noerr Pennington immunity is applicable to . . . state-law claims such as fraud and tortious interference"

Summary of this case from ATICO INTERNATIONAL USA, INC. v. LUV N' CARE, LTD.

affirming district court's dismissal of a claim under theNoerr-Pennington doctrine

Summary of this case from AGFA CORPORATION v. UNITED MARKETING GROUP, INC.

rejecting argument that breach of contract can never constitute occurrence

Summary of this case from Wis. Pharmacal Co. v. Neb. Cultures of Cal., Inc.

rejecting argument that breach of contract can never constitute occurrence

Summary of this case from Wis. Pharmacal Co. v. Neb. Cultures of Cal., Inc.

construing the term "arising out of tort" to indicate the language "must be construed to cast a broader penumbra than torts alone" to encompass an unfair competition statutory claim

Summary of this case from Lateral Recovery, LLC v. Capital Merch. Servs.

applying the doctrine to bar a claim under New York General Business Law § 349

Summary of this case from Rutty v. Krimko

noting Noerr-Pennington's applicability to "state-law claims"

Summary of this case from Weldon v. Mtag Servs., LLC

noting that decisionmaker was aware of Plaintiff's age and medical condition in applying same actor inference.

Summary of this case from Brown v. CrowdTwist

stating that "evidence that an employee is replaced by a younger individual … is not enough, standing alone, to establish that the employer's proffered reason for firing the employee was pretextual"

Summary of this case from Welland v. Citicorp, Inc
Case details for

Bath Petroleum Storage v. Market Hub

Case Details

Full title:Bath Petroleum Storage, Inc. v. Market Hub Partners, L.P

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

Date published: Oct 11, 2000

Citations

229 F.3d 1135 (2d Cir. 2000)

Citing Cases

Thruway Produce, Inc. v. Mass. Bay Ins. Co.

Relying upon Sturges and other New York appellate cases, a federal district court summarized New York law on…

Black & Veatch Corp. v. Aspen Ins. (Uk) Ltd.

. . . .Defendant's position that a breach of contract or warranty can never constitute an "occurrence" was…