Idaho Code
Idaho Code § 48-101 (2026)
Short title.
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IClegislature.idaho.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Short title.
This act shall be known and may be cited as the "Idaho Competition Act."
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18
cases, 1973–2016 · leading case: Pope v. Intermountain Gas Co., 646 P.2d 988 (Idaho 1982).
Pope v. Intermountain Gas Co., 646 P.2d 988 (Idaho 1982). “Competing insulators filed a class action against Intermountain Gas and its officers on January 19, 1977, alleging antitrust violations of I.C. §§ 48-101, [1] -102, [2] and seeking treble damages pursuant to I.”
Saint Alphonsus Diversified Care, Inc. v. MRI Assocs., LLP, 224 P.3d 1068 (Idaho 2010). “[12] One of the statutes, former Idaho Code § 48-101 , provided, "Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy in restraint of trade of commerce, within this state, is hereby declared to be illegal.”
State v. Daicel Chem. Indus., Ltd., 106 P.3d 428 (Idaho 2005). “Did the District Court Err in Dismissing the Complaint Alleging a Claim Under the Idaho Competition Act? By its complaint filed on January 6, 2003, the State sought to recover damages against the Defendants under the Idaho Competition Act (ICA), Idaho Code §§ 48-101 et seq., on…”
K. Hefner, Inc. v. Caremark, Inc., 918 P.2d 595 (Idaho 1996). “With regard to BCI and Caremark, Hefner alleges a violation of the Idaho Antitrust Law (I.C. §§ 48-101 to -119). According to Hefner’s allegations, the BCI plan results in the selling of prescription drugs “below cost” in violation of the Unfair Sales Act (a separate statute),…”
Twin Falls Farm & City Distrib., Inc. v. D & B Supply Co., 528 P.2d 1286 (Idaho 1974). “Appellant alleged in its complaint that various acts and practices of respondents constituted unfair competition, attempted monopoly, and a conspiracy in restraint of trade within the purview of Idaho Code § 48-101 et seq. Specifically, appellant alleged that respondents…”
Afton Energy, Inc. v. Idaho Power Co., 834 P.2d 850 (Idaho 1992). “Afton asserts that the trial court incorrectly dismissed Afton's claims that Idaho *857 Power, its officers, directors, and agents conspired to violate I.C. §§ 48-101 (Combination in restraint of trade illegal) and -104 (Unfair competition illegal).”
Fitzgerald v. Walker, 826 P.2d 1301 (Idaho 1992). “The Atkinsons claimed that Country Pride had violated the antitrust provisions contained in I.C. §§ 48-101, 48-102, and 48-202. During pretrial discovery, Walker failed to answer several interrogatories.”
Freiberger v. Am. Triticale, Inc., 815 P.2d 437 (Idaho 1991). “COUNT FOUR ANTITRUST Count four alleges antitrust violations of I.C. §§ 48-101, 48-102, and 48-104, on the part of Simplot.”
Blough v. Holland Realty, Inc., 574 F.3d 1084 (9th Cir. 2009). “Although the complaint asserts a claim under the Idaho analogue of the Sherman Act, Idaho Code § 48-101 , no discrete arguments are made with respect to liability under that statute.”
High Valley Concrete, LLC v. Sargent, 234 P.3d 747 (Idaho 2010). “; breach of contract; and violation of I.C. § 48-101, et seq. The cases were consolidated on February 2, 2007.”
Pollard Oil Co. v. Christensen, 645 P.2d 344 (Idaho 1982). “At the outset, the appellants have claimed that the respondent’s actions were in contravention of the Idaho Anti-trust Law (I.C. § 48-101 et seq.) and the Idaho Anti-Price Discrimination Act (I.”
Jackson v. Wood, 859 P.2d 378 (Idaho Ct. App. 1993). “The Woods counterclaimed, alleging anti-competitive conduct under I.C. § 48-101 et seq., unlawful price discrimination under I.”
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.