K.S.A. » Chapter 50
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 50-132 (2026)

Conspiring to monopolize line of business or to prevent producer or local buyer from shipping without agency of third person

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

50-132. Conspiring to monopolize line of business or to prevent producer or local buyer from shipping without agency of third person. No person, servant, agent or employee of any person doing business within the state of Kansas shall conspire or combine with any other persons, within or without the state for the purpose of monopolizing any line of business, or shall conspire or combine for the purpose of preventing the producer of grain, seeds or livestock or hay, or the local buyer thereof, from shipping or marketing the same without the agency of any third person.

History: L. 1899, ch. 293, § 2; R.S. 1923, 50-132; L. 2000, ch. 136, § 15; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1986–2021 · leading case: In re Epipen, 336 F. Supp. 3d 1256 (D. Kan. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re Epipen, 336 F. Supp. 3d 1256 (D. Kan. 2018). · cites it 2× “2004) (citing Kan. Stat. Ann. § 50-132 ("No person, servant, agent or employee of any person doing business within the state of Kansas shall conspire or combine with any other *1314 persons, within or without the state for the purpose of monopolizing any line of business.”
In re Relafen Antitrust Litig., 221 F.R.D. 260 (D. Mass. 2004). · cites it 2× “2d 520 (1999), the Kansas Monopolies and Unfair Trade Act, Kan. Stat. Ann. § 50-132 , by its terms prohibits combinations and conspiracies only.”
Bergstrom v. Noah, 974 P.2d 520 (Kan. 1999). · cites it 4× “50-101; (2) the FLCC parties had conspired and combined with other persons, firms, or corporations for the purpose of monopolizing the sale of livestock in North Central Kansas and South Central Nebraska, in violation of K.S.A. 50-132; and (3) the FLCC parties had agreed among…”
Bergstrom v. Noah, 974 P.2d 531 (Kan. 1999). “50-101, K.S.A. 50-132, K.S.A. 50-112 and K.S.A. 50-801.”
Reazin v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Kansas, Inc., 635 F. Supp. 1287 (D. Kan. 1986). “Count IX alleges a violation of K.S.A. 50-132 by a conspiracy or combination for the purpose of monopolizing.”
Kucharski-Berger v. Hill's Pet Nutrition (Kan. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 2× “Her second claim under the KRTA is based on K.S.A. 50-132—it is unlawful for any "person, servant, agent or employee of any person doing business within the state of Kansas [to] conspire or combine with any other persons, within or without the state for the purpose of…”
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.