Alaska Stat. » Chapter 45.50
Alaska Statutes

Alaska Stat. § 45.50.562 (2026)

Combinations in restraint of trade unlawful

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AK-LEGakleg.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 45.50.562. Combinations in restraint of trade unlawful.
Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce is unlawful.


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1983–2022 · leading case: Odom v. Fairbanks Mem'l Hosp., 999 P.2d 123 (Alaska 2000).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Odom v. Fairbanks Mem'l Hosp., 999 P.2d 123 (Alaska 2000). · cites it 12× “Odom alleges that FMH violated two separate provisions of Alaska's antitrust act, AS 45.50.562 and AS 45.50.564. He raises three claims: (1) unreasonable restraint of trade, [2] (2) group boycott, [3] and (3) unlawful monopoly.”
Alakayak v. British Columbia Packers, Ltd., 48 P.3d 432 (Alaska 2002). · cites it 5× “" We have noted that claims brought under AS 45.50.562 are analogous to claims brought under § 1 of the federal Sherman Act, 41 and that federal cases construing § 1 of the Sherman Act will be used as a guide.”
Betz v. Chena Hot Springs Grp., 742 P.2d 1346 (Alaska 1987). · cites it 7× “The Betzes asserted that this breach of contract forced them out of business “thus lessening competition and creating a monopoly to operate hotel facilities at Chena Hot Springs Resort by CHS in violation of AS 45.50.562.” In December 1985, CHS moved for partial judgment on the…”
Hallam v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 91 P.3d 279 (Alaska 2004). · cites it 2× “He argues under AS 45.50.562 and AS 45.50.564 that Alaska Airlines “has attempted to contract, conspire, and combine” with other airlines “to monopolize air travel in this region” and “restraint ] free trade.”
Sisters of Providence v. A.A. Pain Clinic, Inc., 81 P.3d 989 (Alaska 2003). · cites it 2× “They also pleaded two state anti-trust claims, one for unreasonable restraint of trade in violation of AS 45.50.562, and one for attempted monopolization in violation of AS 45.”
Kos v. Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co., 676 P.2d 1069 (Alaska 1983). · cites it 4× “On appeal, however, the only statutes at issue are AS 45.50.562 (prohibiting combinations or conspiracies in restraint of trade) and AS 45.”
California v. Infineon Tech. AG, 531 F. Supp. 2d 1124 (N.D. Cal. 2007). “See Alaska Stat. § 45.50.562 et seq.; § 45.50.”
Odom v. Lee, 999 P.2d 755 (Alaska 2000). · cites it 3× “Dr. Odom should be allowed to develop this claim on remand.”
Gunderson v. Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks, 902 P.2d 323 (Alaska 1995). “§§ 45.50.562, 45.50.576; or, in the alternative, a violation of 42 U.”
Petroleum Sales, Ltd. v. Mapco Alaska, Inc., 687 P.2d 923 (Alaska 1984). “AS 45.50.562 prohibits contracts or combinations in restraint of trade.”
Lake & Peninsula Borough v. Norquest Seafoods, Inc., 42 P.3d 521 (Alaska 2002). · cites it 3× “AS 45.50.562 defines combinations in restraint of trade: "Every contract, .”
Davitashvili v. Grubhub Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2022). “, which [sic] respect to purchases in Alabama; Alaska Stat. §§ 45.50.562 , 45.50.576(a), (b), with respect to purchases in Alaska; Ariz Rev.”
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.