Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 24-1-2-3 (2026)
Restraint of bidding for letting contracts; offense
✓ current as of May 2026
Sec. 3. A person who engages in any scheme, contract, or combination to restrain or restrict bidding for the letting of any contract for private or public work, or restricts free competition for the letting of any contract for private or public work, commits a Class A misdemeanor.
Formerly: Acts 1907, c.243, s.3. As amended by Acts 1978, P.L.2, SEC.2404.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1994–2021 · leading case: Gariup Constr. Co. v. Carras-Szany-Kuhn & Assocs., P.C., 945 N.E.2d 227 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
Gariup Constr. Co. v. Carras-Szany-Kuhn & Assocs., P.C., 945 N.E.2d 227 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). “The unsuccessful bidder now contends that the trial court erred by doing so because: (1) its claim was properly brought under Indiana Code section 24-1-2-3 of the *230 Indiana Antitrust Act as a matter of law, even where it did not allege that the governmental entity was a party…”
Shook Heavy & Env't Constr. Grp. v. City of Kokomo, 632 N.E.2d 355 (Ind. 1994). “Such an understanding is not contended and would likely violate Ind.Code Ann. § 24-1-2-3 (Burns 1991), supra, note 5.”
Trans-care, Inc. v. Bd. of Com'rs of Cty. of Vermillion, 831 N.E.2d 1255 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). “It stated that Indiana Code Section 24-1-2-7, authorizing the bringing of a lawsuit for a violation of Indiana Code Section 24-1-2-3, 3 "addresses the concern this court expressed in *1261 Gariup .”
Brownsburg Cmty. Sch. Corp. v. Natare Corp., 824 N.E.2d 336 (Ind. 2005). “Section 8, I.C. § 24-1-2-3, prohibits the restraint of bidding for letting of contracts whether public or private, and Section 4, I.”
Skyline Roofing & Sheet Metal Co. v. Ziolkowski Constr., Inc., 957 N.E.2d 176 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). “Indiana Code section 24-1-2-3 (1978) provides, “A person who engages in any scheme, contract, or combination to restrain or restrict bidding for the letting of any contract for private or public work, or restricts free competition for the letting of any contract for private or…”
Thompson v. Vigo Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 876 N.E.2d 1150 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “Specifically, Thompson argues that Famco colluded with Vigo County by engaging in a scheme geared to restrain *1155 bidding and restrict free competition in violation of I.C. §§ 24-1-2-3 and 24-1-2-7. Asserting that the Notice to Offer was unduly restrictive as to ensure only…”
Alva Elec., Inc. v. Evansville-Vanderburgh Sch. Corp., 7 N.E.3d 263 (Ind. 2014). “Because this contention is dispositive we do not address Defendants' contentions that (1) the language of Indiana Code section 24-1-2-1 exempts them from the reach of the Antitrust Act because each of the six contracts the parties executed here was lawful in isolation; and (2)…”
Hamrick's Diesel Serv. & Trailer Repair, LLC v. City of Evansville Ex Rel. Bd. of Pub. Works, 935 N.E.2d 764 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). “Ind.Code § 24-1-2-3 is the Indiana Antitrust Act.”
City of Fort Wayne v. Pierce Mfg., Inc., 853 N.E.2d 508 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). “Natare’s bid was rejected, and Natare filed a complaint against the School and others “alleging that the three had conspired to exclude Natare from consideration as a supplier for the pool and bulkhead in violation of the provision of the Indiana Antitrust Act prohibiting…”
Brownsburg Cmty. Sch. Corp. v. Natare Corp., 808 N.E.2d 148 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). “On March 6, 2008, Natare filed suit against Brownsburg, Schmidt and Spear, alleging that they had conspired to exelude Natare from consideration as a supplier for a school construction project in violation of Indiana Code section 24-1-2-3. Specifically, Natare alleged that the…”
Alva Elec., Inc. v. Evansville Vanderburgh Sch. Corp., 984 N.E.2d 668 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). “See Ind.Code § 24-1-2-3. Contractors sought relief in the form of: (1) a declaration that “each of the agreements used in furtherance of the scheme” was void because the project violated the public bidding laws and were an illegal circumvention of the Antitrust Act; (2)…”
Fuller v. Town of Vevay ex rel. Vevay Town Council, 713 N.E.2d 318 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). “Constmctive Fraud The Fullers also argue that summary judgment should be set aside due to “fraud and collusion' — constructive fraud in violation of I.C. § 24-1-2-3.” Appellant’s brief at 13.”
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.