February 2014  LACBA MCLE Test and Answer Sheet

Test No. 232: Big Doctrine

To access the article related to this test, please click here.
Instructions for Obtaining MCLE Credit

The Los Angeles County Bar Association certifies that this activity has been approved for Minimum Continuing Legal Education legal ethics credit by the State Bar of California in the amount of 1 hour. To apply for credit, please follow the instructions.

1. Study the CLE article.

2. Answer the test questions by marking the appropriate boxes. Each question has only one answer.

3. Photocopies of this answer sheet may be submitted; however, this form should not be enlarged or reduced. Mail the answer sheet and the $20 testing fee ($25 for non-LACBA members) to:

Los Angeles Lawyer
P.O. Box 55020
Los Angeles, CA 90055

Make checks payable to Los Angeles Lawyer.

4. You can also fill in the test form and submit it directly to LACBA by clicking "Submit." To submit your test answers online you will need to pay by credit card. After submitting your answers you will be presented with a screen requesting payment information. This information will be submitted in a secure mode which will allow you to safely transmit your credit card number over the Internet. If you prefer not to pay by credit card, please print this answer sheet and submit your responses by regular mail.

5. Within six weeks, Los Angeles Lawyer will return your test with the correct answers, a rationale for the correct answers, and a certificate verifying the CLE credit you earned through this self-assessment activity.

6. For future reference, please retain the CLE test materials returned to you.


Test Sheet

Mark your answers to the test by clicking next to your choice.  All questions must be answered.  Each question has only one answer. This test is worth 1 hour of credit.*

1. The Noerr-Pennington doctrine was originally developed in the context of the:

2. In Eastern R. Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court considered the following First Amendment rights:

3. A party may be held liable under the Sherman Act for lobbying the government in an attempt to decrease competition.

4. The first court to recognize that a doctrine had been created with Noerr and United Mine Workers v. Pennington was:

5. It is well settled that Noerr-Pennington doctrine applies outside the antitrust context.

6. In Noerr, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a violation of the Sherman Act had occurred because the railroad companies' public relations campaign against truckers was fundamentally anticompetitive.

7. At the time of Trucking Unlimited, there was a jurisdiction split concerning whether the Noerr-Pennington doctrine applied outside the antitrust context.

8. The first case to expand Noerr-Pennington beyond the antitrust context was:

9. Only in the last five years have courts begun to apply Noerr-Pennington beyond the antitrust context.

10. In Webb v. Fury, the West Virginia Supreme Court suggested that Noerr-Pennington immunizes all petitioning, irrespective of whether it is alleged that the petitioner affirmatively lied to the government.

11. The Noerr-Pennington doctrine provides greater protection to the right to petition than to other First Amendment rights.

12. In Cardtoons, L.C. v. Major League Baseball Players Association, the Tenth Circuit stated that Noerr-Pennington immunity is only applicable in the antitrust context.

13. In Cardtoons, the Tenth Circuit stated that Noerr was based on a construction of the Sherman Act and that it was not a First Amendment decision.

14. No recent cases in jurisdictions outside of the Tenth Circuit have followed the Cardtoons court's view on Noerr-Pennington outside antitrust.

15. In Sliding Door, the Central District followed Cardtoons and rejected the application of Noerr-Pennington outside the antitrust context.

16. In BE&K Constr. Company, Justice Stephen Breyer, in his concurrence, referred to Noerr-Pennington as “antitrust precedent.”

17. California state courts generally hold that Noerr-Pennington immunity applies outside the antitrust context.

18. In People ex rel. Gallegos v. Pacific Lumber Company, the appellate court looked toward this Supreme Court decision to determine that Noerr-Pennington applies outside the antitrust context:

19. California courts generally hold that the Noerr-Pennington doctrine is a rule of evidence.

20. In Hernandez v. AMCORD, Inc., the court followed Cardtoons and ruled that the Noerr-Pennington doctrine is inapplicable outside antitrust.

Before clicking the Submit button, please verify that all questions have been answered. An error message will appear if not all questions are answered.

* The Los Angeles County Bar Association has been approved as a continuing legal education provider of Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit by the State Bar of California. This self-assessment activity will qualify for Minimum Continuing Legal Education legal ethics credit by the State Bar of California in the amount of one hour.