Idaho Code
Idaho Code § 48-104 (2026)
Unreasonable restraint of trade or commerce.
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IClegislature.idaho.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Unreasonable restraint of trade or commerce.
A contract, combination, or conspiracy between two (2) or more persons in unreasonable restraint of Idaho commerce is unlawful.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1973–2024 · leading case: Pope v. Intermountain Gas Co., 646 P.2d 988 (Idaho 1982).
Pope v. Intermountain Gas Co., 646 P.2d 988 (Idaho 1982). “[3] Later at trial, plaintiffs' complaint was amended to include I.C. § 48-104 [4] as an additional basis for the action.”
Wesco Autobody Supply, Inc. v. Ernest, 243 P.3d 1069 (Idaho 2010). “Idaho Code § 48-104 then provides: "A contract, combination, or conspiracy between two (2) or more persons in unreasonable restraint of Idaho commerce is unlawful.”
Woodland Furniture, LLC v. Larsen, 124 P.3d 1016 (Idaho 2005). “Idaho Code § 48-104 strikes the balance between free competition and fair competition by offering relief only where a company can show a competitor’s intent to drive the company out of business, rather than simply an intent to compete.”
Saint Alphonsus Diversified Care, Inc. v. MRI Assocs., LLP, 224 P.3d 1068 (Idaho 2010). “" When former section 48-101 was repealed, the legislature enacted new Idaho Code § 48-104 , which provides, "A contract, combination, or conspiracy between two (2) or more persons in unreasonable restraint of Idaho commerce is unlawful.”
Twin Falls Farm & City Distrib., Inc. v. D & B Supply Co., 528 P.2d 1286 (Idaho 1974). “However, I.C. § 48-104 does not require concerted action.”
Afton Energy, Inc. v. Idaho Power Co., 834 P.2d 850 (Idaho 1992). “11 (through a typographical error, the Court referred to I.C. § 48-104 as I.C. § 48-114 in footnote 11.”
Pines Grazing Ass'n v. Flying Joseph Ranch, LLC, 265 P.3d 1136 (Idaho 2011). “Idaho Code § 48-104 provides: “Unreasonable restraint of trade or commerce.”
Plummer v. City of Fruitland, 87 P.3d 297 (Idaho 2004). “ABSENCE OF A CONFLICT WITH THE GENERAL LAWS The Plummers argue that the City’s exclusive solid waste disposal franchise ordinance is in conflict with Sections 48-104 and 48-105 of the Idaho Code.”
Gen. Auto Parts Co. v. Genuine Parts Co., 979 P.2d 1207 (Idaho 1999). “The district court did not find that there was sufficient evidence to sustain General’s claim that GPC intended to run General out of business when it granted GPC summary judgment on General’s statutory claim under I.C. § 48-104, which prohibits any act done for the purpose of…”
Carlock v. Pillsbury Co., 719 F. Supp. 791 (D. Minnesota 1989). “(the Idaho plaintiffs) allege that defendants violated Idaho Code § 48-104 which prohibits the selling of “any article or product at less than its fair market value, or at a less price than it is accustomed to demand or receive therefor in any other place under like conditions”…”
Zoellner v. St. Luke's Reg'l Med. Ctr., Ltd., 937 F. Supp. 2d 1261 (D. Idaho 2013). “§ 15 (Section 4 of the Clayton Act; permitting antitrust actions by private plaintiffs).”
Teresa D. v. City of Fruitland, 89 P.3d 841 (Idaho 2003). “Prohibition on Anticompetitive Conduct The next issue is whether the City's actions in restricting Plummer's ability to carry on a solid waste collection business constituted anticompetitive conduct prohibited by I.C. §§ 48-104 and -105. The district court granted summary…”
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.