§480-9 Monopolization. No person shall
monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other
person to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce in any commodity in any
section of the State. [L 1961, c 190, §7; Supp, §205A-7; HRS §480-9]
Case Notes
Mentioned in discussing availability of estoppel as defense
in private antitrust action. 296 F. Supp. 920.
One element of conspiracy to monopolize is specific intent to
control prices or destroy competition in any line of trade or commerce. Test
for specific intent is the same, whether applied to conspiracy or attempt to
monopolize. 491 F. Supp. 1199.
Defendants lacked necessary market share and hence monopoly
power in service jobbing of all tobacco products in Hawaii. 513 F. Supp. 726.
Mere formality of separate incorporation is not, without
more, sufficient to provide the capability for conspiracy. Parent corporation
controlled subsidiary to such a degree that the two entities in substance
constitute a single entity incapable of conspiring with itself. 513 F. Supp.
726.
Action by shopping center tenant against shopping center
owner. 530 F. Supp. 499.
Large landowner's monopoly power over own lands not illegal
where not used to injure competitors. 594 F. Supp. 1480.
Mentioned, where plaintiff alleged that defendants' practice
of imposing maximum price restrictions in rebate program for the installation
of solar water heaters violated state and federal antitrust law, and summary
judgment granted for defendants on plaintiffs' claims based on Sections 1 and 2
of the Sherman Act and state antitrust claims. 409 F. Supp. 2d 1206.
Elements of offense of monopoly. 63 H. 289, 627 P.2d 260.
Federal statutes and decisions are to be used as guides. 63
H. 289, 627 P.2d 260.
Where appellants failed to adduce evidence of a causal
connection between appellees' "anticompetitive" conduct and
appellees' alleged monopoly power, trial court properly concluded that there
was insufficient evidence to sustain appellants' attempt to monopolize claim
under this section; thus, as appellants failed to prove a violation of chapter
480, appellants had no standing to bring claim for relief under §480-13(a). 91
H. 224, 982 P.2d 853.
Where economic interest of corporation's officer/majority
shareholder's was the same as that of corporation's two wholly-owned
subsidiaries, officer/majority shareholder could not conspire with the
corporation for purposes of §480-4 or this section. 91 H. 224, 982 P.2d 853.
Where the two companies were wholly-owned subsidiaries of the
same parent corporation and shared a singular economic interest, they could not
constitute a plurality of actors for purposes of a conspiracy under §480-4 or
this section. 91 H. 224, 982 P.2d 853.
Notes of Decisions
Island Tobacco Co. v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 627 P.2d 260 (Haw. 1981).
· cites it 17× “On February 24, 1977, the circuit court awarded summary judgment to defendants on the cause of action grounded on alleged violations of HRS § 480-9; the motions were denied in all other respects.”
Kapunakea Partners v. Equilon Enter. LLC, 679 F. Supp. 2d 1203 (D. Haw. 2009).
· cites it 8× “These allegations seem to be alluding to a monopolization claim under HRS § 480-9. The statute provides that “[n]o person shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce in any commodity in…”
Robert's Waikiki U-Drive, Inc. v. Budget Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc., 491 F. Supp. 1199 (D. Haw. 1980).
· cites it 4× “§ 2 (1976), and under the Hawaii equivalent, Haw.Rev. Stat. § 480-9 (1976). There are four essential elements of a § 2, attempt to monopolize claim: 1) specific intent to control prices or destroy competition with respect to a part of commerce; 2) predatory or anticompetitive…”
Caraang v. PNC Mortg., 795 F. Supp. 2d 1098 (D. Haw. 2011).
· cites it 4× “§ 480-13, and the Hawaii Monopolization Act, Haw.Rev.Stat. § 480-9. Plaintiffs make general allegations that Defendant/Defendants engaged in anti-competitive conduct and attempted to monopolize the mortgage lending and servicing market.”
Oahu Gas Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Resources, Inc., 460 F. Supp. 1359 (D. Haw. 1978).
· cites it 2× “§ 2 , and Haw.Rev.Stat. § 480-9. Certain arrangements, contracts and combinations between Gaseo and its customers are alleged to constitute unreasonable restraints of trade and commerce, in violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.”
Souza v. Est. of Bishop, 594 F. Supp. 1480 (D. Haw. 1984).
· cites it 2× “§ 480-9 reads: “No person shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce in any commodity in any section of the State.”
Robert's Hawaii Sch. Bus, Inc. v. Laupahoehoe Transp. Co., 982 P.2d 853 (Haw. 1999).
· cites it 8× “21 Similarly, HRS § 480-9 (1985 & Supp. 1992) provides that “[n]o person shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce,” tracing Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.”
Kiep v. Turner, 80 B.R. 521 (D. Haw. 1987).
“) § 480-9; (2) unlawful use of interlocking directorates in violation of H.”
Hu Honua Bioenergy, LLC v. Hawaiian Elec. Indus., Inc. (D. Haw. 2025).
· cites it 2× “Count V alleges that Defendants engaged in unfair methods of competition (HRS § 480-2), restraints of trade (HRS § 480-4), and monopolization (HRS § 480-9). See ECF No. 268 at PageID.7593.”
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.