Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 35 — · Chapter 624 — Connecticut Antitrust Act
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 35-24 (2026)

Short title: Connecticut Antitrust Act

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
This chapter shall be known as the “Connecticut Antitrust Act”.

(1971, P.A. 608, S. 1; P.A. 75-567, S. 1, 80.)

History: P.A. 75-567 substituted “chapter” for “part”.

Cited. 169 C. 344.

Cited. 33 CS 216; 35 CS 136.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 65 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1973–2024 · leading case: Elec. Contractors, Inc. v. Dep't of Educ., 35 A.3d 188 (Conn. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Elec. Contractors, Inc. v. Dep't of Educ., 35 A.3d 188 (Conn. 2012). · cites it 8× “pplicable competitive bidding laws, General Statutes §§ 4a-100, 4b-91, 4b-92 and 10-287, (3) the individual plaintiffs did not have standing under article first, §§ 1, 4, 5 and 20, of the Connecticut constitution to challenge the PLA requirement, and (4) ECI did not have…”
Brown & Brown, Inc. v. Blumenthal, 954 A.2d 816 (Conn. 2008). · cites it 8× “The defendant is conducting an ongoing investigation into certain practices in the insurance industry that may be in violation of the Connecticut Antitrust Act, General Statutes § 35-24 et seq. In furtherance of this investigation, the defendant issued interrogatories and a…”
Vacco v. Microsoft Corp., 793 A.2d 1048 (Conn. 2002). · cites it 4× “1 First, as a matter of first impression, we must determine whether the plaintiff, Andrew Vacco, 2 as an end user licensee 3 of a software product manufactured by the defendant, Mircosoft Corporation, may maintain a claim against the defendant pursuant to the Connecti *62 cut…”
Blumenthal v. Kimber Mfg., Inc., 826 A.2d 1088 (Conn. 2003). · cites it 4× “is suspicion of the respondents’ participation in a retaliatory economic boycott against Smith & Wesson, the petitioner issued to the respondents interrogatories and a subpoena duces tecum, pursuant to the petitioner’s investigatory authority under General Statutes § 35-42,…”
Miller's Pond Co., LLC v. City of New London, 873 A.2d 965 (Conn. 2005). · cites it 4× “They contend that the trial court improperly: (1) applied § 35-31(b), which exempts certain activities from the Connecticut Antitrust Act, General Statutes § 35-24 et seq., when those activities are "specifically directed or required by a statute of this state, or of the United…”
Cheryl Terry Enter., Ltd. v. City of Hartford, 811 A.2d 1272 (Conn. 2002). · cites it 5× “5 The plaintiffs complaint alleged a violation of the Connecticut Antitrust Act (act); General Statutes § 35-24 et seq.; 6 *244 in that it was not awarded the contract due to a conspiratorial agreement between a union and the defendant, with the purpose of obtaining a union…”
Tremont Pub. Advisors, LLC v. Connecticut Resources Recovery Auth., 333 Conn. 672 (Conn. 2019). · cites it 3× “The primary issue that we must resolve in this appeal is whether allegations that a quasi- public agency engaged in a sham competitive bidding procedure and awarded a contract to a preselected entity for corrupt reasons and in violation of a competi- tive bidding statute are…”
Cheryl Terry Enter., Ltd. v. City of Hartford, 854 A.2d 1066 (Conn. 2004). · cites it 4× “[3] The plaintiff's complaint alleged a violation of the Connecticut Antitrust Act (act); General Statutes § 35-24 et seq.; in that it was not awarded the contract due to a conspiratorial agreement between a [labor] union and the defendant, with the purpose of obtaining a union…”
Atl. Richfield Co. v. Canaan Oil Co., 520 A.2d 1008 (Conn. 1987). · cites it 2× “” See General Statutes §§ 35-24 through 35-49. Because the defendant does not allege it was precluded from introducing evidence of the plaintiffs actual conduct that might have constituted an antitrust as well as a CUTPA violation, we fail to perceive any prejudice to the…”
Westport Taxi Serv., Inc. v. Westport Transit Dist., 664 A.2d 719 (Conn. 1995). · cites it 2× “In this appeal, we must decide whether the trial court properly imposed liability upon the defendant under the Connecticut Antitrust Act (act); General Statutes § 35-24 et seq.; and, if so, whether the trial court properly awarded the plaintiff treble damages, including lost…”
Hatcho Corp. v. Della Pietra, 485 A.2d 1285 (Conn. 1985). · cites it 2× “General Statutes §§ 35-24 through 35-45. This claim is wholly lacking in merit.”
McKeown Distributors, Inc. v. Gyp-Crete Corp., 618 F. Supp. 632 (D. Conn. 1985). · cites it 4× “§§ 1-7 , the Connecticut Anti-Trust Act, Conn.Gen. Stat. §§ 35-24 to 35-45, the Connecticut Franchise Act, Conn.”
Show all 65 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.