I. Introduction

II. The Development and Restriction of State Action Immunity for Cities: The Parker Doctrine ... A. Parker v. Brown: In the Beginning ... B. Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar: A Compulsion Standard ... C. Cantor v. Detroit Edison Co.: Compulsion Plus Affirmative/Active State Policy ... D. Bates v. State Bar of Arizona: Clear Articulation, Affirmative Expression, Active Supervision ... E. City of Lafayette v. Louisiana Power & Light Co.: Erosion of the Parker Doctrine for Cities ... F. New Motor Vehicle Board v. Orrin W. Fox Co. and California Retail Liquor Dealers Association v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc.: The Parker Standard Refined and Adopted ... G. Community Communications Co. v. City of Boulder: More Erosion of Parker Immunity for Cities ... H. Town of Hallie v. City of Eau Claire and Southern Motor Carriers Rate Conference, Inc. v. United States: 1985 Cases Clarify Parker Immunity ... I. Application of Parker State Action Immunity in the Lower Courts ... 1. The Search for State Authorization ... 2. Grounds for Defeating Parker Immunity Claims ... a. Improper Self-Interest ... b. Least Restrictive Means ... c. Commercial/Proprietary Conduct ... d. Conspiracy with Private Parties

III. Immunity for Private Attempts to Influence Government Decisions: The Noerr-Pennington Doctrine ... A. Development of the Political Action Immunity Doctrine ... B. Exceptions to the Application of the Noerr-Pennington Immunity Doctrine ... 1. The "Abuse of Process" Exception ... 2. The "Co-conspiracy" Exception ... 3. The "Commercial" Exception ... 4. The "Sham" Exception

IV. The Relationship between the Parker and Noerr-Pennington Doctrines: Common Roots, Separate Branches ... A. Historical Context—Companion Doctrines ... B. Noerr-Pennington Conditioned on Parker: Parallel Restrictions on Immunity ... C. The Relationship between Petitioning Immunity and State Action Immunity: Detecting Subtle Linkage ... D. The Local Government Antitrust Act of 1984: New Pressure on Noerr-Pennington Petitioning Immunity ... E. A Recommended Approach to the Application of the Noerr-Pennington and Parker Doctrines

V. Conclusion