Opinion ID: 1058052
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Basis of the Circuit Court's Holding

Text: Dunn further asserts that the circuit court erred by grounding its ruling on the Noerr-Pennington doctrine to petition the government. [] We disagree with Dunn. The record clearly demonstrates that the circuit court sustained Connolly's demurrer on the grounds that Dunn failed to allege sufficient facts to state a cause of action for tortious interference with a contract. During the circuit court's hearing on the demurrer, the court repeatedly asked Dunn how the facts in its amended complaint constitute tortious interference, and the court ultimately held that many more facts have to be pled to indicate [the element of impropriety], and without those facts . . . the case cannot go forward. The circuit court's judgment sustaining Connolly's demurrer was based firmly on Dunn's failure to adequately state a prima facie cause of action, not the Noerr-Pennington doctrine.