Every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of any part of trade or commerce is unlawful.
(1971, P.A. 608, S. 3.)
Cited. 169 C. 344. Statute applies to contract entered into prior to effective date of statute if contract continues in existence thereafter. 177 C. 218. Cited. 180 C. 680; 181 C. 655, overruled, see 335 C. 174; 184 C. 285; 241 C. 24. Exclusivity provisions between newspaper and syndicators did not constitute per se violations of antitrust statutes. 261 C. 673. Section is substantially identical to federal Sherman Act, 15 USC 1, and applies to contracts, combinations or conspiracies in restraint of trade or commerce. 303 C. 205. Trial court incorrectly concluded that plaintiff nonunion contractor, as an unsuccessful bidder in a municipal bidding process, did not have standing to prosecute its claim against the city where city enforced a project labor agreement in the pre-bid specifications that required the successful bidder to perform all project work with union labor. Id., 402.
An initial contract might not violate the antitrust laws at the time of its formation but arguably could become violative of those same laws when one of the contracting parties later gains unlawful dominance and control over a market as a result of a series of contracts or acquisitions. 104 CA 685.
Cited. 35 CS 136.
Notes of Decisions
Elec. Contractors, Inc. v. Dep't of Educ., 35 A.3d 188 (Conn. 2012).
· cites it 10× “It specifically contends that the PLA requirement in this case violates General Statutes §§ 35-26, [36] 35-28 [37] and 35-29 [38] because, inter alia, it (1) bars ECI *217 and other nonunion contractors and subcontractors from executing contracts and performing work on the…”
Miller's Pond Co., LLC v. City of New London, 873 A.2d 965 (Conn. 2005).
· cites it 10× “In August, 2000, the plaintiffs brought this action for damages and injunctive relief, claiming that the defendants' conduct constituted: (1) restraint of trade in violation of General Statutes § 35-26; [10] (2) monopolization in violation of General Statutes § 35-27; [11] (3)…”
Journal Publ'g Co. v. Hartford Courant Co., 31 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1097 (Conn. 2002).
· cites it 7× “The plaintiff claimed in its petition that there was probable cause to believe that the defendant wrongfully had excluded the plaintiff from the market for Sunday comic strips in violation of General Statutes §§ 35-26* 2 and 35-28 (b) 3 and (d) and had engaged in an unfair…”
Shea v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. of New Haven, 439 A.2d 997 (Conn. 1981).
· cites it 6× “onduct was designed to cause borrowers to assume either that only attorneys on the defendant’s approved list may represent borrowers at closings when the defendant finances the mortgage or that the attorneys on the defendant’s list provide better representation than unlisted…”
Tremont Pub. Advisors, LLC v. Connecticut Resources Recovery Auth., 333 Conn. 672 (Conn. 2019).
· cites it 3× “The plaintiff further points out that there are several provi- sions of the antitrust act at issue in the present case, namely, General Statutes §§ 35-26, 35-27 and 35-28 (a) and (d),12 and that § 35-28 (a) and (d) have no statutory counterparts in the federal antitrust laws.”
Bridgeport Harbour Place I, LLC v. Ganim, 958 A.2d 210 (Conn. App. Ct. 2008).
· cites it 7× “At the hearing on the defendants’ motions to strike the original complaint, the plaintiffs counsel indicated that the plaintiff was claiming violations of General Statutes §§ 35-26 and 35-28. 6 Section 35-26 provides: “Every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of…”
Bridgeport Harbour Place I, LLC v. Ganim, 32 A.3d 296 (Conn. 2011).
· cites it 6× “, and Michael Schinella, 1 alleging that the defendants had violated General Statutes § 35-26 2 of the Connecticut Antitrust Act (antitrust act) by engaging in an illegal conspiracy in restraint of trade.”
Cheryl Terry Enter., Ltd. v. City of Hartford, 854 A.2d 1066 (Conn. 2004).
· cites it 4× “" General Statutes § 35-26. For purposes of the act, "`[p]erson'" is defined broadly as "any individual, proprietorship, corporation, limited liability company, firm, partnership, incorporated and unincorporated association, or any other legal or commercial entity.”
Wyatt Energy, Inc. v. Motiva Enters., LLC, 936 A.2d 280 (Conn. App. Ct. 2007).
· cites it 8× “The Connecticut Antitrust Act is a legislative enactment that expresses abroad public policy of promoting competition in the marketplace and prohibiting unreasonable restraints on trade, monopolies and attempts to monopolize a defined market area.”
MM Global Servs., Inc. v. Dow Chem. Co., 283 F. Supp. 2d 689 (D. Conn. 2003).
· cites it 4× “§ 1 , the Connecticut Antitrust Act, Conn. Gen.Stat. §§ 35-26 and 28(a), the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (“CUTPA”), Conn.”
Wyatt Energy, Inc. v. Motiva Enter., LLC, 19 A.3d 181 (Conn. App. Ct. 2011).
· cites it 9× “” General Statutes § 35-27 provides: “Every contract, combination, or conspiracy to monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or monopolization of any part of trade or commerce is unlawful.”
Elida, Inc. v. Harmor Realty Corp., 413 A.2d 1226 (Conn. 1979).
· cites it 3× “General Statutes § 35-26 provides that any contract in restraint of trade or commerce is unlawful.”
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.