Ala. Code
Code of Alabama

Ala. Code § 6-5-60 (2026)

By Whom and Against Whom Action May Be Commenced; Venue.

✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaAla. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Any person, firm, or corporation injured or damaged by an unlawful trust, combine, or monopoly, or its effect, direct or indirect, may, in each instance of such injury or damage, recover the sum of $500 and all actual damages from any person, firm, or corporation creating, operating, aiding, or abetting such trust, combine, or monopoly and may commence the action therefor against any one or more of the parties to the trust, combine, or monopoly, or their attorneys, officers, or agents, who aid or abet such trust, combine, or monopoly. All such actions may be prosecuted to final judgment against any one or more of the defendants thereto, notwithstanding there may be a dismissal, acquittal, verdict, or judgment in favor of one or more of the defendants.

(b) Actions under this section may be commenced in any county where the trust, combine, or monopoly was formed or where it exists or is carried on, promoted, operated, practiced, employed, used, or enjoyed, or in any county in which either of the defendants may have a domicile or where an officer or agent of any defendant corporation may be found.

(Code 1907, §§2487, 2488; Code 1923, §§5697, 5698; Code 1940, T. 7, §§124, 125.)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 43 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1982–2022 · leading case: Abbott Labs. v. Durrett, 746 So. 2d 316 (Ala. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Abbott Labs. v. Durrett, 746 So. 2d 316 (Ala. 1999). · cites it 45× “The issue presented on this appeal is whether Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-60, provides a cause of action for damage alleged to have resulted from a conspiracy to control the price of brand-name prescription drugs that were shipped from companies out-of-state into Alabama.”
Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. Seven Up Bottling Co., 746 So. 2d 966 (Ala. 1999). · cites it 24× “The issue presented on this appeal is whether Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-60, provides a cause of action for damage alleged to have resulted from a conspiracy to control the price of citric acid that was shipped from companies out-of-state into Alabama.”
Vandenberg v. Aramark Educ. Servs., Inc., 1100557 (Ala. 9-30-2011), 81 So. 3d 326 (Ala. 2011). · cites it 9× “5 The students specifically alleged that the universities’ exclusive contracts with their respective food-service vendors violated § 6-5-60, Ala.Code 1975, inasmuch as those contracts created “an unlawful trust, combine, or monopoly” and that those contracts were…”
Jefferson Cnty. Comm'n v. Edwards, 32 So. 3d 572 (Ala. 2009). · cites it 6× “In Archer Daniels, this Court construed § 6-5-60, Ala.Code 1975, and explained: "[T]here is no language in § 6-5-60 that conclusively indicates an intent on the Legislature's part to regulate transactions involving the shipment of goods through interstate commerce.”
City of Bessemer v. McClain, 957 So. 2d 1061 (Ala. 2006). · cites it 3× “) The Court further stated: "As the plaintiff correctly points out, § 6-5-60 is not, on its face, limited to transactions involving intrastate commerce.”
Mobile Cnty. Water, Sewer & Fire Prot. Auth., Inc. v. Mobile Area Water & Sewer Sys., Inc., 567 F. Supp. 2d 1342 (S.D. Ala. 2008). · cites it 9× “1 in no way undermines, alters or defeats defendant’s entitlement to state action immunity from the federal antitrust claims interposed against it in this action. C. The State-Law Antitrust Claim.”
Jim Burke Auto., Inc. v. McGrue, 826 So. 2d 122 (Ala. 2002). · cites it 3× “She also alleges that the defendants have violated [Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-60,] by engaging in an unlawful trust, combine or monopoly.”
In Re Brand Name Prescription Drugs Antitrust Litig.. Appeals of Robert A. Huggins, 123 F.3d 599 (7th Cir. 1997). · cites it 2× “Ala.Code § 6-5-60(a). The defendants argued, and the district court agreed, that the suit is removable to federal court under both the diversity statute and, by virtue of the doctrine of “artful pleading,” the federal-question statute as well.”
Freeman Indus., LLC v. Eastman Chem. Co., 172 S.W.3d 512 (Tenn. 2005). “, Ala.Code § 6-5-60 (2004); Cal. Bus. & Prof.”
Bunker's Glass Co. v. PILKINGTON, PLC, 75 P.3d 99 (Ariz. 2003). · cites it 2× “[4] Alabama, Ala.Code § 6-5-60(a) (1993); California, Cal.”
Johnson v. Microsoft Corp., 106 Ohio St. 3d 278 (Ohio 2005). “50 — 161(b); Maine, 10 Me.Rev.Stat.Ann. 1104(1); Maryland, Md.”
California v. ARC Am. Corp., 490 U.S. 93 (1989). “See Ala. Code § 6-5-60 (a) (1975) (allowing recovery by any person "injured or damaged .”
Show all 43 citing cases →
— Ala. Code § 6-5-60(a) — 8 cases
In Re Brand Name Prescription Drugs Antitrust Litig.. Appeals of Robert A. Huggins, 123 F.3d 599 (7th Cir. 1997). “Ala.Code § 6-5-60(a). The defendants argued, and the district court agreed, that the suit is removable to federal court under both the diversity statute and, by virtue of the doctrine of “artful pleading,” the federal-question statute as well.”
Bunker's Glass Co. v. PILKINGTON, PLC, 75 P.3d 99 (Ariz. 2003). “[4] Alabama, Ala.Code § 6-5-60(a) (1993); California, Cal.”
Johnson v. Microsoft Corp., 106 Ohio St. 3d 278 (Ohio 2005). “50 — 161(b); Maine, 10 Me.Rev.Stat.Ann. 1104(1); Maryland, Md.”
Union Carbide Corp. v. Superior Court, 679 P.2d 14 (Cal. 1984).
Abbott Labs. v. Durrett, 746 So. 2d 316 (Ala. 1999). “The issue presented on this appeal is whether Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-60, provides a cause of action for damage alleged to have resulted from a conspiracy to control the price of brand-name prescription drugs that were shipped from companies out-of-state into Alabama.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.