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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1403 (2026)

Establishment, maintenance or use of monopoly

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

The establishment, maintenance or use of a monopoly or an attempt to establish a monopoly of trade or commerce, any part of which is within this state, by any person for the purpose of excluding competition or controlling, fixing or maintaining prices is unlawful.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1978–2020 · leading case: Pasco Indus., Inc. v. Talco Recycling, Inc., 985 P.2d 535 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Pasco Indus., Inc. v. Talco Recycling, Inc., 985 P.2d 535 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 13× “”) section 44-1403 (1994)? No. NPRC did not possess monopoly power in the market for recycled polystyrene.”
Bunker's Glass Co. v. Pilkington PlC, 47 P.3d 1119 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “1998) (analyzing requirements necessary to prove violation of A.R.S. § 44-1403 under federal case law interpreting section 2 of Sherman Act); Wedgewood Inv.”
Snelling & Snelling, Inc. v. Dupay Enter., Inc., 609 P.2d 1062 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 2× “Appellants claim that this is a tying arrangement in violation of A.R.S. § 44-1403. A tying arrangement involves a seller’s refusal to sell one product unless the buyer also purchases another, different product.”
W. Waste Serv. Sys., Inc. v. Superior Court, 584 P.2d 554 (Ariz. 1978). · cites it 2× “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…”
State Bar v. Berry (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “§ 2 (designating the monopolization of trade or commerce as a felony offense); see also A.R.S. § 44-1403. Berry does not, however, suggest the State Bar controls pricing for legal services or that he, as a disbarred attorney, is a lawful competitor in the market for legal…”
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.