This chapter shall not be construed to prohibit:
1. The activities of any labor organization, individual members of such an organization, or group of such organizations, of any employer or group of employers, or of any groups of employees, if these activities are directed solely to legitimate labor objectives which are permitted under the laws of either this state or the United States.
2. The activities of any agricultural or horticultural organization, whether incorporated or unincorporated, or of the individual members of such organizations, if these activities carry out the legitimate objectives of such organizations, to the extent permitted under the laws of either this state or the United States.
3. The activities of persons engaged in the production of agricultural products when these persons act together in associations, corporate or otherwise, with or without capital stock, in collectively processing, preparing for market, handling, and marketing the products of these persons, to the extent permitted under the laws of either this state or the United States. These associations may have marketing and purchasing agencies in common and their members may make the necessary contracts and agreements to effect such purposes. However, such associations must be operated for the mutual benefit of the members of these associations acting as producers to qualify under this subsection.
4. The activities or arrangements expressly approved or regulated by any regulatory body or officer acting under authority of this state or of the United States.
5. The activities of a city or county, or an administrative or legal entity created by a city or county, when acting within its statutory or constitutional home rule powers and to the same extent that the activities would not be prohibited if undertaken by the state. [C24, 27, 31, 35, 39, §9916; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, §553.11; C77, 79, 81, §553.6] 84 Acts, ch 1020, §1 \n
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
15
cases, 1982–2017 · leading case:
Steven A. Mueller, Bradley J. Brown, Mark A. Kruse, Kevin D. Miller, & Larry E. Phipps, on Behalf of Themselves & Those Like Situated v. Wellmark, Inc. D/B/A Wellmark Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Iowa, an Iowa Corp. & Wellmark Health Plan of Iowa, Inc., an Iowa Corp., 818 N.W.2d 244 (Iowa 2012).
Steven A. Mueller, Bradley J. Brown, Mark A. Kruse, Kevin D. Miller, & Larry E. Phipps, on Behalf of Themselves & Those Like Situated v. Wellmark, Inc. D/B/A Wellmark Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Iowa, an Iowa Corp. & Wellmark Health Plan of Iowa, Inc., an Iowa Corp., 818 N.W.2d 244 (Iowa 2012).
· cites it 30× “fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Iowa Insurance Commissioner pursuant to Iowa Code § 553.6 (4)”; and (2) “Several of the allegations contained in Plaintiffs’ Third Amendment to Petition are contrary to undisputed fact.”
Neyens v. Roth, 326 N.W.2d 294 (Iowa 1982).
· cites it 22× “” Iowa Code § 553.6 (4). This exemption parallels the “state action” exclusion from the Sherman Act, first recognized by the Supreme Court in Parker v.”
Crippen v. City of Cedar Rapids, 618 N.W.2d 562 (Iowa 2000).
· cites it 12× “Section 553.6 states: This chapter shall not be construed to prohibit: [[Image here]] 4.”
Pfiffner v. Roth, 379 N.W.2d 357 (Iowa 1985).
· cites it 24× “) Does the amendment to section 553.6 affect this case? The city of Dubuque says it does.”
Fed. Land Bank of Omaha v. Tiffany, 529 N.W.2d 294 (Iowa 1995).
· cites it 10× “The plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion raised several issues in connection with this claim, including the one that is dispositive of the issue: that the plaintiffs are exempt under Iowa Code section 553.”
Amended June 5, 2015 Steven A. Mueller, Bradley J. Brown, Mark A. Kruse, Kevin D. Miller, & Larry E. Phipps, on Behalf of Themselves & Those Like Situated v. Wellmark, Inc. D/B/A Wellmark Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Iowa, an Iowa Corp., & Wellmark Health Plan of Iowa, Inc., an Iowa Corp., 861 N.W.2d 563 (Iowa 2015).
· cites it 4× “; see also Iowa Code § 553.6 (4) (providing that the Iowa Competition Law “shall not be construed to prohibit .”
State v. Miner, 331 N.W.2d 683 (Iowa 1983).
· cites it 2× “Iowa Code § 553.6 (4). The Iowa Competition Law does not attempt to prohibit economic regulations imposed by the State when the State has a significant interest in regulating such economic activity.”
Davies v. Genesis Med. Ctr., 994 F. Supp. 1078 (S.D. Iowa 1998).
· cites it 2× “2d 294, 297-98 (Iowa 1932) (holding district court erred in concluding § 553.6(4)’s exemption applied to defendants; stating reasoning of United States Supreme Court case, filed after district court’s ruling, required rejection of defendants’ argument, even though federal…”
Nw. Bell Tel. Co. v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 477 N.W.2d 678 (Iowa 1991).
· cites it 2× “We have stated that a determination that a given activity is exempt under the federal state action analysis is entitled to “considerable weight” in deciding whether the same activity is exempt from state antitrust regulations pursuant to Iowa Code section 553.6(4). Neyens v.…”
Hearity v. Bd. of Supervisors, 437 N.W.2d 903 (Iowa 1989).
· cites it 4× “d verdict, the district court concluded that (a) plaintiff had failed to establish that the challenged agreements operate to control an otherwise competitive market; and (b) the board of supervisors was empowered to make the contract under the county’s constitutional home rule…”
— Iowa Code § 553.6(4) — 11 cases
Steven A. Mueller, Bradley J. Brown, Mark A. Kruse, Kevin D. Miller, & Larry E. Phipps, on Behalf of Themselves & Those Like Situated v. Wellmark, Inc. D/B/A Wellmark Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Iowa, an Iowa Corp. & Wellmark Health Plan of Iowa, Inc., an Iowa Corp., 818 N.W.2d 244 (Iowa 2012).
“fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Iowa Insurance Commissioner pursuant to Iowa Code § 553.6 (4)”; and (2) “Several of the allegations contained in Plaintiffs’ Third Amendment to Petition are contrary to undisputed fact.”
Neyens v. Roth, 326 N.W.2d 294 (Iowa 1982).
“” Iowa Code § 553.6 (4). This exemption parallels the “state action” exclusion from the Sherman Act, first recognized by the Supreme Court in Parker v.”
Pfiffner v. Roth, 379 N.W.2d 357 (Iowa 1985).
“) Does the amendment to section 553.6 affect this case? The city of Dubuque says it does.”
Fed. Land Bank of Omaha v. Tiffany, 529 N.W.2d 294 (Iowa 1995).
“The plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion raised several issues in connection with this claim, including the one that is dispositive of the issue: that the plaintiffs are exempt under Iowa Code section 553.”
— Iowa Code § 553.6(5) — 4 cases
Pfiffner v. Roth, 379 N.W.2d 357 (Iowa 1985).
“) Does the amendment to section 553.6 affect this case? The city of Dubuque says it does.”
Hearity v. Bd. of Supervisors, 437 N.W.2d 903 (Iowa 1989).
“d verdict, the district court concluded that (a) plaintiff had failed to establish that the challenged agreements operate to control an otherwise competitive market; and (b) the board of supervisors was empowered to make the contract under the county’s constitutional home rule…”
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.