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

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 35-28 (2026)

Acts unlawful when purpose or effect is restraint of trade or commerce

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Without limiting section 35-26, every contract, combination, or conspiracy is unlawful when the same are for the purpose, or have the effect, of: (a) Fixing, controlling, or maintaining prices, rates, quotations, or fees in any part of trade or commerce; (b) fixing, controlling, maintaining, limiting, or discontinuing the production, manufacture, mining, sale, or supply of any part of trade or commerce; (c) allocating or dividing customers or markets, either functional or geographical, in any part of trade or commerce; or (d) refusing to deal, or coercing, persuading, or inducing third parties to refuse to deal with another person.

(1971, P.A. 608, S. 5.)

Cited. 169 C. 344. Trial court erred in finding restrictive covenant in shopping center lease “per se” illegal since “rule of reason” was appropriate standard to apply. 177 C. 218. Cited. 181 C. 655, overruled, see 335 C. 174; 184 C. 285; 192 C. 460; 195 C. 399. Exclusivity provisions between newspaper and syndicators did not constitute per se violations of antitrust statutes. 261 C. 673. 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. 303 C. 402.

Cited. 31 CS 110; 33 CS 217. Covenant in shopping park lease prohibiting any other tenant from selling similar food within 400 feet of leased premises appears to violate Subdiv. (d), so temporary injunction enforcing covenant should not be issued. 34 CS 74. Cited. 35 CS 136.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22 cases, 1973–2020 · leading case: Tremont Pub. Advisors, LLC v. Connecticut Resources Recovery Auth., 333 Conn. 672 (Conn. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Tremont Pub. Advisors, LLC v. Connecticut Resources Recovery Auth., 333 Conn. 672 (Conn. 2019). · cites it 10× “12 General Statutes § 35-28 provides in relevant part: ‘‘Without limiting section 35-26, every contract, combination, or conspiracy is unlawful when the same are for the purpose, or have the effect, of: (a) Fixing, controlling, or maintaining prices, rates, quotations, or fees…”
Elec. Contractors, Inc. v. Dep't of Educ., 35 A.3d 188 (Conn. 2012). · cites it 8× “Moreover, General Statutes § 35-28 explicitly forbids every "contract, combination, or conspiracy .”
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)…”
Elida, Inc. v. Harmor Realty Corp., 413 A.2d 1226 (Conn. 1979). · cites it 7× “The trial court concluded that the restrictive covenant sought to be enforced by the plaintiff was intended to prevent competition with the plaintiff and will have that effect if enforced; and that the covenant in question was “per se” unreasonable and contrary to the express…”
Shea v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. of New Haven, 439 A.2d 997 (Conn. 1981). · cites it 3× “The facts recited in the memoranda of decision support the trial court’s conclusions: (1) that the defendant association did not contract, combine, or conspire to preclude the plaintiff and other attorneys similarly situated from engaging in the practice of real estate law; (2)…”
McKeown Distributors, Inc. v. Gyp-Crete Corp., 618 F. Supp. 632 (D. Conn. 1985). · cites it 5× “” Conn.Gen.Stat. § 35-28(d). It is well-settled that an individual or corporation cannot alone contract, combine, or conspire to violate the antitrust laws.”
Journal Publ'g Co. v. Hartford Courant Co., 31 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1097 (Conn. 2002). · cites it 2× “” General Statutes § 35-28 provides: “Without limiting section 35-26, every contract, combination, or conspiracy is unlawful when the same are for the purpose, or have the effect, of: (a) Fixing, controlling, or maintaining prices, rates, quotations, or fees in any part of trade…”
Mazzola v. S. New England Tel. Co., 363 A.2d 170 (Conn. 1975). · cites it 4× “ombination, or conspiracy" when such are "for the purpose, or have the effect, of: (a) Fixing, controlling, or maintaining prices, rates, quotations, or fees in any part of trade or commerce; (b) fixing, controlling, maintaining, limiting, or discontinuing the production,…”
Connecticut Ass'n of Clinical Labs. v. Connecticut Blue Cross, Inc., 324 A.2d 288 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1973). · cites it 4× “The section on which the plaintiffs rely is General Statutes § 35-28, which reads in part: “[EJvery contract, combination, or conspiracy is unlawful when the same are for the purpose, or have the effect, of: .”
Tucker v. Alleyne, 488 A.2d 452 (Conn. 1985). · cites it 6× “With respect to the first count of his complaint, he claims that the trial court erred in failing to find, as a fact, that he had been the victim of disparate treatment by the defendants, and in failing to conclude as a matter of law that he had been deprived of his federal…”
MacDermid Printing Solutions LLC v. Cortron Corp., 833 F.3d 172 (2d Cir. 2016). “ad failed to prove it was injured because the proof offered was based on a statistical analysis that was insignificant at the 95% confidence interval; (2) that the DuPont press release was presumptively harmless commercial speech; (3) that settling a patent-infringement claim…”
Tucker v. Maher, 472 A.2d 1261 (Conn. 1984). · cites it 3× “The second count incorporated all of the allegations of the first count and further alleged that Maher’s ordering his subordinate employees not to deal with the plaintiff under § 17-2f was a violation of General Statutes § 35-28 of the Connecticut Anti-Trust Act.”
Show all 22 citing cases →
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 35-28(d) — 2 cases
McKeown Distributors, Inc. v. Gyp-Crete Corp., 618 F. Supp. 632 (D. Conn. 1985). “” Conn.Gen.Stat. § 35-28(d). It is well-settled that an individual or corporation cannot alone contract, combine, or conspire to violate the antitrust laws.”
Retail Serv. Assocs. v. Conagra Pet Prods. Co., 759 F. Supp. 976 (D. Conn. 1991).
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.