Ala. Code
Code of Alabama

Ala. Code § 8-10-1 (2026)

Entering Combination, Pool, Etc., to Fix Price or Limit Quantity of Commodity.

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

Any person or corporation who engages or agrees with other persons or corporations or enters, directly or indirectly, into any combination, pool, trust, or confederation to regulate or fix the price of any article or commodity to be sold or produced within this state or any person or corporation who enters into, becomes a member of or party to any pool agreement, combination, or confederation to fix or limit the quantity of any article or commodity to be produced, manufactured, mined, or sold in this state must be fined, on conviction, not less than $500 nor more than $2,000.

(Code 1896, §5557; Code 1907, §7579; Code 1923, §5212; Code 1940, T. 57, §106.)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases, 1982–2001 · 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 10× “…107, and § 108 of Title 57 of the 1940 Code were carried forward in substantially the same form into the 1975 Code as § 8-10-1, § 8-10-2, and § 8-10-3, respectively: "[§ 8-10-1] Any person or corporation who engages or agrees with other persons or corporations or enters,…”
Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. Seven Up Bottling Co., 746 So. 2d 966 (Ala. 1999). · cites it 8× “…107, and § 108 of Title 57 of the 1940 Code were carried forward in substantially the same form into the 1975 Code as § 8-10-1, § 8-10-2, and § 8-10-3, respectively: "[§ 8-10-1] Any person or corporation who engages or agrees with other *980 persons or corporations or enters,…”
Griffiths v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Alabama, 147 F. Supp. 2d 1203 (N.D. Ala. 2001). · cites it 5× “§§ 1 , 2; Alabama antitrust law, § 8-10-1, et seq., Ala.Code (2000); Alabama fraud law, and has intentionally and tortiously interfered with business relationships.”
In Re Chicken Antitrust Litig. Am. Poultry, 669 F.2d 228 (5th Cir. 1982). “, Ala.Code §§ 8-10-1, 8-10-2, 8-10-3 (1975); Fla.”
McGuire Oil Co. v. Mapco, Inc., 612 So. 2d 417 (Ala. 1992). “; the AMFMA; and the Alabama Unfair Trade Practices Act, § 8-10-1 et seq. The parties stipulated to the dismissal of Mapco, Inc.”
City of Tuscaloosa v. Harcros Chemicals, Inc., 158 F.3d 548 (11th Cir. 1998). “7 The third count of the complaints asserted that the defendants conspired to restrain trade in violation of Alabama Code § 8-10-1 et seq. (1993). The plaintiffs sought actual damages and $500 in statutory liquidated damages for each instance of injury or damage resulting from…”
Four Way Plant Farm, Inc. v. NCCI, 894 F. Supp. 1538 (M.D. Ala. 1995). · cites it 2× “1 In their complaint plaintiffs claimed under the antitrust law of Alabama, Ala.Code §§ 8-10-1 et seq. and § 6-5-60, that defendants engaged in a price-fixing scheme in connection with assigned risk workers’ compensation insurance.”
In Re NASDAQ Mkt. Makers Antitrust Litig., 929 F. Supp. 174 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). “Ala.Code § 8-10-1 (1975). The second claim in the Complaint seeks relief under the Alabama common law of agency, based on Defendants' alleged violation of the duty of an agent to its principal.”
Southtrust Corp. v. Plus Sys., Inc., 913 F. Supp. 1517 (N.D. Ala. 1995). · cites it 4× “The ATM services challenged in the present case are not articles or commodities, and thus do not fall within the ambit of § 8-10-1.”
McGuire Oil Co. v. Mapco Petroleum, Inc., 763 F. Supp. 1103 (S.D. Ala. 1991). · cites it 3× “Apparently, the order did not address Counts II and III of Mapco’s counterclaims which are based on the Robinson-Patman Act, 15 U.”
Freeman v. Dupont Pharm. Co., 790 So. 2d 248 (Ala. 2001). “Baugus; and *249 "The court having heard oral argument by counsel for the parties on September 23, 1999; and "The Plaintiffs having alleged that they suffered injuries as a result of DuPont's monopolization or attempt to monopolize the market for the prescription drug warfarin…”
Tisdale v. A.G. Edwards & Sons, 929 F. Supp. 174 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). “Ala.Code § 8-10-1 (1975). The second claim in the Complaint seeks relief under the Alabama common law of agency, based on Defendants’ alleged violation of the duty of an agent to its principal.”
Show all 14 citing cases →
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.