California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited
E176642
California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited is a 1972 U.S. Supreme Court case that addressed the limits of First Amendment petitioning rights when parties allegedly use governmental and judicial processes as part of an anticompetitive scheme in violation of antitrust laws.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited canonical | 2 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T1538896 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited Context triple: [Petition Clause, citedInCase, California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited]
-
A.
MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co.
MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. is a landmark 1916 New York Court of Appeals case that expanded manufacturers’ liability in negligence to consumers, even without privity of contract.
-
B.
Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio
Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio is a 1989 U.S. Supreme Court case that narrowed the standards for proving employment discrimination under Title VII, prompting Congress to later revise those standards in the Civil Rights Act of 1991.
-
C.
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. Chicago
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. Chicago is an 1897 U.S. Supreme Court case that marked a key step in applying federal constitutional protections—particularly just compensation for takings—to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
D.
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green is a 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that established the key burden-shifting framework for proving employment discrimination under Title VII.
-
E.
United States v. Darby
United States v. Darby is a 1941 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld federal labor regulations under the Commerce Clause and marked a broad expansion of federal power over economic activity.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited Target entity description: California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited is a 1972 U.S. Supreme Court case that addressed the limits of First Amendment petitioning rights when parties allegedly use governmental and judicial processes as part of an anticompetitive scheme in violation of antitrust laws.
-
A.
MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co.
MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. is a landmark 1916 New York Court of Appeals case that expanded manufacturers’ liability in negligence to consumers, even without privity of contract.
-
B.
Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio
Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio is a 1989 U.S. Supreme Court case that narrowed the standards for proving employment discrimination under Title VII, prompting Congress to later revise those standards in the Civil Rights Act of 1991.
-
C.
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. Chicago
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. Chicago is an 1897 U.S. Supreme Court case that marked a key step in applying federal constitutional protections—particularly just compensation for takings—to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
D.
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green is a 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that established the key burden-shifting framework for proving employment discrimination under Title VII.
-
E.
United States v. Darby
United States v. Darby is a 1941 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld federal labor regulations under the Commerce Clause and marked a broad expansion of federal power over economic activity.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (48)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
First Amendment case
ⓘ
United States Supreme Court case ⓘ antitrust case ⓘ |
| allegation | conspiracy by incumbent carriers to oppose competitors’ applications before regulatory agencies and courts ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
competition law
ⓘ
constitutional law ⓘ |
| arguedDate | 1971-11-10 ⓘ |
| citation | 404 U.S. 508 ⓘ |
| concurrenceBy |
William H. Rehnquist
ⓘ
surface form:
Justice William H. Rehnquist
|
| concurrenceType | concurring in the result ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvision | First Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ |
| country |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decidedYear | 1972 ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1972-01-24 ⓘ |
| docketNumber | 70-73 ⓘ |
| holding |
Sham petitioning to agencies and courts may fall outside the Noerr-Pennington immunity and be subject to antitrust laws
ⓘ
The First Amendment does not protect from antitrust liability a conspiracy to use administrative and judicial processes to bar competitors from meaningful access to those agencies and courts ⓘ |
| issue | whether use of administrative and judicial processes as part of an anticompetitive scheme can lose First Amendment petitioning protection ⓘ |
| joinedBy |
Warren E. Burger
ⓘ
surface form:
Chief Justice Warren E. Burger
Byron R. White ⓘ
surface form:
Justice Byron R. White
Harry A. Blackmun ⓘ
surface form:
Justice Harry A. Blackmun
Lewis F. Powell Jr. ⓘ
surface form:
Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr.
Potter Stewart ⓘ
surface form:
Justice Potter Stewart
Thurgood Marshall ⓘ
surface form:
Justice Thurgood Marshall
William J. Brennan Jr. ⓘ
surface form:
Justice William J. Brennan Jr.
|
| jurisdiction | federal question jurisdiction ⓘ |
| keyPhrase |
abuse of governmental processes
ⓘ
meaningful access to the courts ⓘ sham litigation ⓘ |
| legalSubject |
First Amendment to the United States Constitution
ⓘ
surface form:
First Amendment
Noerr-Pennington doctrine ⓘ antitrust law ⓘ right to petition the government ⓘ |
| opinionBy |
William O. Douglas
ⓘ
surface form:
Justice William O. Douglas
|
| opinionType | majority opinion ⓘ |
| page | 508 ⓘ |
| petitioner | California Motor Transport Company ⓘ |
| proceduralPosture | appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ⓘ |
| rearguedDate | 1971-12-06 ⓘ |
| relatedCase |
Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc.
ⓘ
United Mine Workers v. Pennington ⓘ |
| relatedDoctrine | Noerr-Pennington immunity ⓘ |
| reporter | United States Reports ⓘ |
| respondent | Trucking Unlimited ⓘ |
| result | judgment of the court of appeals reversed and remanded ⓘ |
| statuteInvolved | federal antitrust laws ⓘ |
| volume | 404 ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited Description of subject: California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited is a 1972 U.S. Supreme Court case that addressed the limits of First Amendment petitioning rights when parties allegedly use governmental and judicial processes as part of an anticompetitive scheme in violation of antitrust laws.
Referenced by (2)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
Noerr-Pennington doctrine
→
clarifiedInCase
→
California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited
ⓘ