Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 50-101 (2026)

Trusts defined and declared unlawful and void

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

50-101. Trusts defined and declared unlawful and void. Except as provided in K.S.A. 50-163, and amendments thereto, a trust is a combination of capital, skill, or acts, by two or more persons, for either, any or all of the following purposes:

First. To create or carry out restrictions in trade or commerce, or to carry out restrictions in the full and free pursuit of any business authorized or permitted by the laws of this state.

Second. To increase or reduce the price of merchandise, produce or commodities, or to control the cost or rates of insurance.

Third. To prevent competition in the manufacture, making, transportation, sale or purchase of merchandise, produce or commodities.

Fourth. To fix any standard or figure, whereby such person's price to the public shall be, in any manner, controlled or established, any article or commodity of merchandise, produce or commerce intended for sale, use or consumption in this state.

Fifth. To make or enter into, or execute or carry out, any contract, obligation or agreement of any kind or description by which such person shall: (a) Bind or have to bind themselves not to sell, manufacture, dispose of or transport any article or commodity, or article of trade, use, merchandise, commerce or consumption below a common standard figure;

(b) agree in any manner to keep the price of such article, commodity or transportation at a fixed or graded figure;

(c) in any manner establish or settle the price of any article or commodity or transportation between them or themselves and others to preclude a free and unrestricted competition among themselves or others in transportation, sale or manufacture of any such article or commodity; or

(d) agree to pool, combine or unite any interest they may have in connection with the manufacture, sale or transportation of any such article or commodity, that such person's price in any manner is affected. Any such combinations are hereby declared to be against public policy, unlawful and void.

History: L. 1897, ch. 265, § 1; R.S. 1923, 50-101; L. 2000, ch. 136, § 4; L. 2013, ch. 102, § 2; April 18.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 40 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1956–2025 · leading case: O'Brien v. Leegin Creative Leather Prods., Inc., 277 P.3d 1062 (Kan. 2012).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

O'Brien v. Leegin Creative Leather Prods., Inc., 277 P.3d 1062 (Kan. 2012). · cites it 32× “(Brighton), alleging violations of the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act (KRTA), K.S.A. 50-101 et seq. We understand O’Brien to contend that Brighton’s practices as a wholesale supplier and retailer constituted illegal price-fixing in violation of K.”

Bergstrom v. Noah, 974 P.2d 531 (Kan. 1999). · cites it 5× “McCartney against the FLCC parties asserting theories of recoveiy under the Kansas Antitrust statutes contained in K.S.A. 50-101, 50-112, 50-132, and 50-801.”

In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig., 336 F. Supp. 3d 395 (D.N.J. 2018). · cites it 2× “It is clear from the Complaint that the allegations concerning the obtaining, listing, and reissuance of the '995 Patent, in addition to the sham litigation and sham citizen petition, are all unilateral actions by Pfizer (SAC ¶ 500). As such, since these allegations describe…”

Merriman v. Crompton Corp., 146 P.3d 162 (Kan. 2006). · cites it 2× “The plaintiff seeks class certification and treble damages pursuant to the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act, K.S.A. 50-101 et seq., as well as attorney fees, costs, and other relief.”

Bergstrom v. Noah, 974 P.2d 520 (Kan. 1999). · cites it 5× “The petition alleged three counts: (1) The FLCC parties had formed a trust through a combination of capital, skill, and acts by two or more persons, firms, corporations, or associations of persons to create a monopoly in the sale of livestock in North Central Kansas and South…”

Oneok, Inc. v. Learjet, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1591 (2015). “, at 362-364 (alleging violations of Kansas Restraint of Trade Act, Kan. Stat. Ann. § 50-101 et seq. ); App. 417-419 (alleging violations of Missouri Antitrust Law, Mo.”

In re Effexor Antitrust Litig., 357 F. Supp. 3d 363 (D.N.J. 2018). · cites it 2× “See *394 Kan. Stat. Ann. §§ 50-101 , -112, -132; N.”

Amundson & Assocs. Art Studio, Ltd. v. Nat'l Council on Comp. Ins., 977 F. Supp. 1116 (D. Kan. 1997). · cites it 4× “Plaintiff sued individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, seeking compensatory damages, treble damages, punitive damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs for violation of Kansas restraint of trade laws, K.S.A. § 50-101…”

Four B Corp. v. Daicel Chem. Indus., Ltd., 253 F. Supp. 2d 1147 (D. Kan. 2003). · cites it 4× “Plaintiffs contend that defendants’ actions in fixing the prices of sorbates were in violation of Kansas antitrust law, Kan. Stat. Ann. § 50-101 , et seq. Pending before the court is defendants Daicel Chemical Industries, Ltd.”

Suture Express, Inc. v. Cardinal Health 200, LLC, 963 F. Supp. 2d 1212 (D. Kan. 2013). · cites it 2× “Seven counts are listed in the complaint: a violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act alleging illegal tying (Count 1); a violation of § 2 of the Sherman Act alleging unlawful monopolization or attempted monopolization of the markets for the domestic distribution of sutures and endo…”

Booth v. Elec. Data Sys. Corp., 799 F. Supp. 1086 (D. Kan. 1992). · cites it 4× “Booth seeks injunctive and monetary relief by claiming that the non-competition agreement he entered into as a part of his employment agreement is an unlawful restraint of trade under K.S.A. § 50-101 et seq. He argues that he is entitled to relief even though the defendant did…”

Amundson & Assocs. Art Studio, Ltd. v. Nat'l Council on Comp. Ins., 988 P.2d 1208 (Kan. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 3× “The first count asserted a violation of the Kansas antitrust laws, K.S.A. 50-101 et seq., and sought treble damages under K.”

Show all 40 citing cases →

— K.S.A. § 50-101(d) — 1 case

O'Brien v. Leegin Creative Leather Prods., Inc., 277 P.3d 1062 (Kan. 2012). “(Brighton), alleging violations of the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act (KRTA), K.S.A. 50-101 et seq. We understand O’Brien to contend that Brighton’s practices as a wholesale supplier and retailer constituted illegal price-fixing in violation of K.”

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.