Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 44
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1401 (2026)

Definition

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

In this article, unless the context otherwise requires: "Person" means an individual, corporation, business trust, partnership, association or any other legal entity.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 37 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1944–2025 · leading case: Bunker's Glass Co. v. PILKINGTON, PLC, 75 P.3d 99 (Ariz. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bunker's Glass Co. v. PILKINGTON, PLC, 75 P.3d 99 (Ariz. 2003). · cites it 8× “PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF THE CASE ¶ 2 Plaintiffs in these consolidated cases filed separate class action suits against various flat glass and tobacco manufacturers for alleged violations of the Arizona Antitrust Act.”
Arizona Downs v. Arizona Horsemen's Found., 637 P.2d 1053 (Ariz. 1981). · cites it 4× “The trial court ruled that paragraph 1 of the lease violated the Arizona antitrust law (A.R.S. § 44-1401 et seq. ). The specific provision of the lease which the trial court found to be in violation of the antitrust statutes states: The parties hereto agree that during the term…”
Supreme Auto Transp., LLC v. Arcelor Mittal USA, Inc., 902 F.3d 735 (7th Cir. 2018). “4 See Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 44-1401 , -1408; Cal.”
State Ex Rel. La Sota v. Arizona Licensed Beverage Ass'n, 627 P.2d 666 (Ariz. 1981). · cites it 4× “This is an appeal by the State from a judgment of dismissal in an action for price fixing in violation of the Uniform State Antitrust Act, A.R.S. § 44-1401 et seq. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 19(e), Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure, 17A A.”
In Re G-Fees Antitrust Litig., 584 F. Supp. 2d 26 (D.D.C. 2008). · cites it 2× “§ 15 , because plaintiffs have pled sufficient facts to establish antitrust standing; (2) Arizona’s Antitrust Act, Ariz. Rev.Stat. § 44-1401 et seq., because plaintiffs have pled sufficient facts to establish a cognizable antitrust claim; (3) Minnesota’s Antitrust Act, MinmStat.”
Bunker's Glass Co. v. Pilkington PlC, 47 P.3d 1119 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “” A.R.S. § 44-1401 (1994). ¶ 12 Although, as Bunker’s Glass points out, nothing in § 44-1408(B) or any other Arizona antitrust statute indicates that a “person” is limited to one who purchases directly from an alleged antitrust law violator, neither does its language preclude…”
In Re Members of the State Bar of Arizona, Bates, 555 P.2d 640 (Ariz. 1976). · cites it 4× “Harrison, President State Bar of Arizona " Respondents timely objected to the recommendations of the Board of Governors and the matter was transferred to this court pursuant to Rule 36(d) of the Rules of the Supreme Court.”
In re Packaged Seafood Prods. Antitrust Litig., 338 F. Supp. 3d 1079 (S.D. Cal. 2018). · cites it 2× “) The Arizona Uniform State Antitrust Act, Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1401 , et seq. , provides that "[t]he attorney general .”
D.R. Ward Constr. Co. v. Rohm & Haas Co., 470 F. Supp. 2d 485 (E.D. Pa. 2006). “Plaintiffs’ Arizona antitrust claim arises under the Arizona Antitrust Act ("AAA”), Ariz. Rev.Stat. §§ 44-1401, et seq.. 2 . Plaintiffs' Tennessee antitrust claim arises under the Tennessee Trade Practices Act ("TTPA”), Tenn.”
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Portland Cement Ass'n, 690 P.2d 140 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “In September of 1976 the State filed an antitrust action based upon Arizona’s Uniform State Antitrust Act, A.R.S. §§ 44-1401 et seq., against the appellants in the superior court.”
Arizona Downs v. Turf Paradise, Inc., 682 P.2d 443 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “Additionally, the Arizona Supreme Court likewise held that the 1956 lease agreement was valid and did not violate Arizona’s antitrust statutes (A.R.S. § 44-1401 et seq.). Subsequently, the 1956 lease agreement was also upheld against attacks made by Turf Paradise pursuant to the…”
In re Flonase Antitrust Litig., 284 F.R.D. 207 (E.D. Pa. 2012). “APPENDIX A State Monopolization Claims Arizona Arizona’s monopolization statute, Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 44-1401, et seq., permits any “person threatened with injury or injured in his business or property” to sue for redress of a violation of the statute.”
Show all 37 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.