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

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 35-27 (2026)

Monopolization or attempt to monopolize unlawful

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Every contract, combination, or conspiracy to monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or monopolization of any part of trade or commerce is unlawful.

(1971, P.A. 608, S. 4.)

Cited. 169 C. 344; 180 C. 680; 181 C. 655, overruled, see 335 C. 174; 184 C. 285; 235 C. 11.

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. 33 CS 220; 35 CS 136.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1976–2021 · leading case: Miller's Pond Co., LLC v. City of New London, 873 A.2d 965 (Conn. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Miller's Pond Co., LLC v. City of New London, 873 A.2d 965 (Conn. 2005). · cites it 8× “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)…”
Westport Taxi Serv., Inc. v. Westport Transit Dist., 664 A.2d 719 (Conn. 1995). · cites it 6× “13 The trial court concluded that the defendant had engaged in both attempted monopolization and actual monopolization in violation of General Statutes § 35-27 of the act. 14 After considering and rejecting the defendant’s special defenses, the trial court concluded that the…”
Shea v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. of New Haven, 439 A.2d 997 (Conn. 1981). · cites it 4× “General Statutes § 35-27 is patterned after § 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.”
McKeown Distributors, Inc. v. Gyp-Crete Corp., 618 F. Supp. 632 (D. Conn. 1985). · cites it 4× “The Complaint also states a claim pursuant to Conn.Gen.Stat. § 35-27, which declares unlawful any “contract, combination or conspiracy to monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or monopolization of any part of trade or commerce.”
CDC Tech., Inc. v. Idexx Labs., Inc., 7 F. Supp. 2d 119 (D. Conn. 1998). · cites it 7× “Similarly, the elements of Conn. Gen.Stat § 35-27 are substantially similar to the elements under § 2 of the Sherman Act, and thus fail with CDC’s federal claim.”
Wyatt Energy, Inc. v. Motiva Enters., LLC, 936 A.2d 280 (Conn. App. Ct. 2007). · cites it 5× “See General Statutes § 35-27. The parties were not in agreement about whether there was a relevant market and whether the Cargill acquisition, in light of Motiva’s control of other similar facilities, gave Motiva monopoly dominance over the relevant market, as the reams of…”
United States v. Microsoft Corp., 87 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2000). · cites it 2× “Code §§ 16720, 16726, 17200 (West 1999); Conn. Gen.Stat. § 35-27 (1999); D.C.Code § 28-4503 (1996); Fla.”
Wyatt Energy, Inc. v. Motiva Enter., LLC, 19 A.3d 181 (Conn. App. Ct. 2011). · cites it 4× “” 10 Additionally, Motiva alleged, and the court agreed, that by failing to assign its agreement obligations to Williams Energy upon sale of the Wyatt terminal, Wyatt committed a material breach of paragraph F of the agreement.”
State v. Hossan-Maxwell, Inc., 436 A.2d 284 (Conn. 1980). · cites it 2× “In a second count the state alleged that the defendants’ arrangement was an attempt to monopolize the market for real estate brokerage services in violation of General Statutes § 35-27. The trial court granted the state’s motion for summary judgment as to the first count against…”
Roncari Dev. Co. v. GMG Enter., Inc., 718 A.2d 1025 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1997). · cites it 2× “onopolize, restrain trade, prevent competition, and/or control prices in the local valet parking market would, if proved at trial, establish violations of the following substantive provisions of the Connecticut Antitrust Act: General Statutes § 35-26, which provides that…”
Blaine v. Meineke Disc. Muffler Shops, Inc., 670 F. Supp. 1107 (D. Conn. 1987). · cites it 2× “That such combination or conspiracy violates the Connecticut Antitrust Act, Conn.Gen.Stat. § 35-27. 5. That such combination or conspiracy to deny plaintiffs an additional license in Windsor Locks violates the Sherman Act, 15 U.”
Bristol Tech., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 42 F. Supp. 2d 153 (D. Conn. 1998). · cites it 2× “Because the Connecticut Antitrust Statute, Conn.Gen.Stat. § 35-27, mirrors the federal anti-monopoly statute, Shea v.”
Show all 16 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.