Arizona Revised Statutes
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1402 (2026)
Contract, combination or conspiracy to restrain or monopolize trade
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official)
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
A contract, combination or conspiracy between two or more persons in restraint of, or to monopolize, trade or commerce, any part of which is within this state, is unlawful.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1969–2026 · leading case: Arizona Downs v. Arizona Horsemen's Found., 637 P.2d 1053 (Ariz. 1981).
Arizona Downs v. Arizona Horsemen's Found., 637 P.2d 1053 (Ariz. 1981). “[3] It is significant that the antitrust claim here is based on the Arizona Antitrust Act (A.R.S. § 44-1402) rather than the Federal Sherman Antitrust Act ( 15 U.”
Bunker's Glass Co. v. Pilkington PlC, 47 P.3d 1119 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). “§ 44-1408(B), which provides: A person threatened with injury or injured in his business or property by a violation of this article may bring an action for appropriate injunctive or other equitable relief, damages sustained and, as determined by the court, taxable costs and…”
Sullivan v. DB Investments, Inc., 667 F.3d 273 (3rd Cir. 2011). “Corn-well was filed on behalf of all purchasers of diamonds in Arizona pursuant to Ariz.Rev. Stat. Ann. § 44-1402 for monopolization of the market for diamonds, and under § 44-1403 for establishment, maintenance or use of monopoly.”
In Re Terazosin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litig., 160 F. Supp. 2d 1365 (S.D. Fla. 2001). “at 4-7, 35-41, 43-44); see Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1402 (providing right of action against antitrust conspiracies affecting commerce “within this state”); Me.”
Pasco Indus., Inc. v. Talco Recycling, Inc., 985 P.2d 535 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998). “section 44-1402. Pasco alleged that the violations were flagrant and thus sought treble damages under A.”
Wedgewood Inv. Corp. v. Int'l Harvester Co., 613 P.2d 620 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1979). “” A.R.S. § 44-1402 The Arizona legislature clearly intended to strive for uniformity between federal and state antitrust laws.”
W. Waste Serv. Sys., Inc. v. Superior Court, 584 P.2d 554 (Ariz. 1978). “The prohibited acts are found in § 44-1402 and § 44-1403. In § 44-1402, contracts and combinations between two or more persons in restraint of or to monopolize trade or commerce are forbidden, and in § 44-1403, the establishment, maintenance or use of a monopoly by any person…”
All Am. Sch. Supply Co. v. Slavens, 625 P.2d 324 (Ariz. 1981). “A.R.S. § 44-1402, the provision applicable to this case, provides: “A contract, combination or conspiracy between two or more persons in restraint of, or to monopolize, trade or commerce, any part of which is within this state, is unlawful.”
Three Phoenix Co. v. Pace Indus., Inc., 659 P.2d 1258 (Ariz. 1983). “§ 1 (and its Arizona counterpart, 14 A.R.S. § 44-1402) paints with a very broad brush, making illegal every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade.”
In Re Digit. Music Antitrust Litig., 592 F. Supp. 2d 435 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). “Code § 16720 (2008) ("A trust is a combination of capital, skill or acts by two or more persons for any of the following purposes.”
In Re Cement & Concrete Antitrust Litig., 437 F. Supp. 750 (J.P.M.L. 1977). “Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 44-1402. 2 . California Business and Professions Code §§ 16720 et seq.”
Gary J. Dunn, Individually & as Guardian of Steven Dunn, a Minor Child & G. Michael Dunn v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., 735 F.2d 1184 (9th Cir. 1984). “§ 1 , and parallel state law, Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 44-1402, by directly signing up home subscribers and engaging in other conduct setting the *1186 price that home subscribers paid to the carriers.”
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.