1. In Eastern RR Presidents Conference v. Noerr
Motor Freight, Inc., 365 U.S. 127 (1961) and in United
Mine Workers of Am. v. Pennington, 381 U.S. 657
(1965), the United States Supreme Court recognized
that litigants are immune from antitrust liability
under the Sherman Antitrust Act, unless the litigants
are engaged in objectively baseless, "sham" litigation.
Does the sham exception to the Noerr-Pennington
Doctrine also apply to common law torts between
noncompetitors, such as state law claims for abuse of
process and wrongful use of civil proceedings?

2. In California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking
Unlimited, 404 U.S. 508, 513 (1972), the Supreme
Court found that pursuing of a "pattern of baseless,
repetitive claims" may qualify as sham litigation, and
is thus left unprotected under the Noerr-Pennington
Doctrine. Over a span of six years, the Respondents
pursued multiple legal challenges against the Petitioner, which were all rejected at various stages. Is
application of the sham exception to Noerr-Pennington
Doctrine a legal question to be resolved on a motion
to dismiss, or a fact issue for a jury to decide?

3. KRS 100.347 states that person or entity
"claiming to be injured or aggrieved" by a zoning
decision "shall appeal" that decision "to the Circuit
Court of the County in which the property .. . lies."
Is a litigant "claiming to be injured or aggrieved"
automatically shielded from claims of abuse of process
or wrongful use of civil proceedings merely because
he or she has standing to bring such a legal challenge?

Does the sham exception to the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine also apply to common law torts between noncompetitors, such as state law claims for abuse of process and wrongful use of civil proceedings?