Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1412 (2026)

Uniformity

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

This article shall be applied and construed to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law with respect to the subject of this article among those states that enact it. It is the intent of the legislature that in construing this article, the courts may use as a guide interpretations given by the federal courts to comparable federal antitrust statutes.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 20 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1979–2025 · 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 27× “¶ 6 As the court of appeals observed in Gray, the "limitation [to direct purchasers] was imposed by Illinois Brick based more on policy considerations than on an interpretation of the actual words of the federal statute.”

Bunker's Glass Co. v. Pilkington PlC, 47 P.3d 1119 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 11× “They rely upon A.R.S. § 44-1412 (1994), which provides as follows: This article shall be applied and construed to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law with respect to the subject of this article among those states that enact it.”

Orca Commc'ns v. Ann Noder Et vir/pitch Pub., 337 P.3d 545 (Ariz. 2014). · cites it 2× “3d at 102 (declining to follow federal precedent even though AR.S. § 44-1412 provides that “in construing this article, the courts may use as a guide interpretations given by the federal courts to comparable federal antitrust statutes”).”

In re Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve Coffee Antitrust Litig., 383 F. Supp. 3d 187 (S.D. Ill. 2019). “See Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 44-1412 ("[I]n construing this article, the courts may use as a guide interpretations given by the federal courts to comparable federal antitrust statutes.”

In Re Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Antitrust Litig., 516 F. Supp. 2d 1072 (N.D. Cal. 2007). “, Ariz.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 44-1412 (“in construing this article, the courts may use as a guide interpretations given by the federal courts to comparable federal antitrust statutes”); Neb.”

In Re Flash Memory Antitrust Litig., 643 F. Supp. 2d 1133 (N.D. Cal. 2009). “See Ariz.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 44-1412 (“in construing this article, the courts may use as a guide interpretations given by the federal courts to comparable federal antitrust statutes”); Neb.”

In Re Terazosin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litig., 160 F. Supp. 2d 1365 (S.D. Fla. 2001). “It appears that the Arizona Supreme Court would adopt Illinois Brick and dismiss the indirect purchasers’ Arizona claims for several reasons. First, the Arizona Antitrust Act urges that state courts “use as a guide interpretations given by the federal courts to comparable…”

In Re G-Fees Antitrust Litig., 584 F. Supp. 2d 26 (D.D.C. 2008). “Ariz. Rev.Stat. § 44-1412. By its decision in Bunker’s Glass Co.”

D.R. Ward Constr. Co. v. Rohm & Haas Co., 470 F. Supp. 2d 485 (E.D. Pa. 2006). “Second, the AAA does not possess a mandatory harmonization clause requiring uniformity between federal and state antitrust precedent, and, furthermore, the permissive harmonization clause in the AAA has been interpreted as applying to substantive issues, rather than to…”

Wedgewood Inv. Corp. v. Int'l Harvester Co., 613 P.2d 620 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 44-1412 provides in part: “It is the intent of the legislature that in construing this article, the courts may use as a guide interpretations given by the federal courts to comparable federal antitrust statutes.”

In Re Flonase Antitrust Litig., 798 F. Supp. 2d 619 (E.D. Pa. 2011). “See Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 44-1412; Bunker's Glass Co.”

Eon Labs., Inc. v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 298 F. Supp. 2d 175 (D. Mass. 2003). “3d 99, 102 (2003) (quoting Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 44-1412). North Carolina courts similarly consider federal interpretations of the federal antitrust laws as “persuasive,” but not binding, authority in construing the state’s antitrust statutes.”

Show all 20 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.