Circuit court erred when it determined that a claim of an illegal tying arrangement based on an alleged forced purchase by a franchisee could not have fallen under state statutes; federal jurisdiction was not exclusive in these matters under the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 1 et seq., moreover, a finding that a state claim could not have prevailed or that defenses existed was improper at the class certification stage because the only permissible inquiry was whether the elements of this rule had been satisfied. Carquest of Hot Springs, Inc. v. General Parts, Inc., 367 Ark. 218, 238 S.W.3d 916 (2006).
Under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1491, the court lacked jurisdiction over a direct attack on the propriety of a federal bid; thus, Veterans Administration outpatient clinic operator's claims under the Arkansas Unfair Practices Act against the healthcare provider based on the provider's receipt of a federal contract were denied.
Valor Healthcare, Inc. v. Pinkerton, 620 F. Supp. 2d 974 (W.D. Ark. 2009).
Cited:
Laidlaw Waste Sys. v. City of Ft. Smith, 742 F. Supp. 540 (W.D. Ark. 1990); Jackson v. Swift-Eckrich, 830 F. Supp. 486 (W.D. Ark. 1993).
Stewart Title Guar. Co. v. Am. Abstract & Title Co., 215 S.W.3d 596 (Ark. 2005). · cites it 4דOn August 27, 2003, Abstract filed a second amended and substituted complaint, alleging that Guaranty and STAR engaged in interference with business expectancy in violation of the Arkansas Unfair Practices Act, codified at Ark.Code Ann. § 4-75-201 et seq. (Repl.2001), Article 2,…”
Chalmers v. Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc., 935 S.W.2d 258 (Ark. 1996). · cites it 4דcorporation doing business in the State of Arkansas and engaged in the production, manufacture, distribution, or sale of any commodity or product ... with the intent to destroy the competition of any regular established dealer in the commodity, product .”
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Am. Drugs, Inc., 891 S.W.2d 30 (Ark. 1995). · cites it 8ד, Tim Benton d/b/a Mayflower Family Pharmacy, [1] and Jim Hendrickson d/b/a Baker Drug, brought suit in circuit court against Wal-Mart for violation of the Arkansas Unfair Practices Act, codified at Ark.Code Ann. § 4-75-201, et seq. (Repl.1991).”
In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litig., 290 F. Supp. 3d 772 (E.D. Ill. 2017). “Arkansas Law "Plaintiffs concede that they cannot bring their price-fixing claim under the Arkansas Unfair Practices Act, Ark. Code Ann. §§ 4-75-201 , 4-75-301," R.”
Carquest of Hot Springs, Inc. v. Gen. Parts, Inc., 238 S.W.3d 916 (Ark. 2006). · cites it 2דThe court made its finding that jurisdiction over illegal tying arrangements rests exclusively in federal court but failed to consider the fact that such arrangements may fall within the purview of the Arkansas Unfair Practices Act, Ark.”
Jackson v. Swift-Eckrich, 830 F. Supp. 486 (W.D. Ark. 1993). · cites it 4ד1990) In response, plaintiffs argue that the appropriate statute of limitations is found in the Arkansas Unfair Practices Act, Ark.Code Ann. § 4-75-201, et seq. 5 As the Arkansas Unfair Practices Act contains no statute of limitations, the appropriate statute under Arkansas law…”
Carquest of Hot Springs, Inc. v. Gen. Parts, Inc., 204 S.W.3d 53 (Ark. 2005). · cites it 2דIn its brief, Carquest argued that the claim was appropriate under the Arkansas Unfair Practices Act (“AUPA”), Ark. Code Ann. §§ 4-75-201 , et seq. (Supp.”
CMH Homes, Inc. v. Thomas Goodner, 729 F.3d 832 (8th Cir. 2013). “, and the Arkansas Unfair Practices Act, Ark.Code Ann. § 4-75-201 et seq., as well as unjust enrichment and constructive fraud.”
Richard Harp Homes, Inc. v. Van Wyk, 262 S.W.3d 189 (Ark. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2ד), Arkansas Unfair Practices Act ( Ark. Code Ann. § 4-75-201 , et seq.) or any other consumer protection statute shall be submitted to non-binding mediation in accordance with the rules and procedures of the American Arbitration Association and by using the following procedure.”
In Re Tft-Lcd (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig., 787 F. Supp. 2d 1036 (N.D. Cal. 2011). “Defendants also note that Arkansas has alleged a separate price-fixing claim under the Arkansas Unfair Practices Act, Ark. Code Ann. § 4-75-201 et seq. ("AUPA"), which codified Arkansas antitrust law.”
Birdsong Tractor & Supply, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 332 F. Supp. 2d 890 (D. Maryland 2004). “Code §§ 4-75-301 to 4-75-322) or the Arkansas Unfair Practices Act (codified at Ark. Code §§ 4-75-201 to 4-75-217) because these are the Arkansas laws governing alleged antitrust violations.”
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.