50-161.
Damages for violation of act; procedure.
(a) As used in this section, the term "person" means any individual, corporation, partnership, firm, company or other association of persons, and such term shall include the state of Kansas and any of its political subdivisions.
(b) Except as provided in K.S.A. 12-205, and amendments thereto, any person who may be damaged or injured by any agreement, monopoly, trust, conspiracy or combination which is declared unlawful by the Kansas restraint of trade act shall have a cause of action against any person causing such damage or injury. Such action may be brought by any person who is injured in such person's business or property by reason of anything forbidden or declared unlawful by the Kansas restraint of trade act, regardless of whether such injured person dealt directly or indirectly with the defendant. The plaintiff in any action commenced hereunder in the district court of the county wherein such plaintiff resides, or the district court of the county of the defendant's principal place of business, may sue for and recover treble the actual damages sustained. In addition, any person who is threatened with injury or additional injury by reason of any person's violation of the Kansas restraint of trade act may commence an action in such district court to enjoin any such violation, and any damages suffered may be sued for and recovered in the same action in addition to injunctive relief. Any suit for injunctive relief against a municipality shall be subject to the provisions of K.S.A. 12-205, and amendments thereto.
(c) In any action commenced under this section, the plaintiff may be allowed reasonable attorney fees and costs. The remedies provided herein shall be alternative and in addition to any other remedies now provided by law.
History:
L. 2000, ch. 136, § 24; L. 2013, ch. 102, § 5; April 18.
Notes of Decisions
In re Epipen, 336 F. Supp. 3d 1256 (D. Kan. 2018).
· cites it 2× “For Kansas, the class plaintiffs assert that Kan. Stat. Ann. § 50-161 (b) permits indirect purchasers to recover if "damaged or injured by any agreement, monopoly , trust, conspiracy or combination.”
Four B Corp. v. Daicel Chem. Indus., Ltd., 253 F. Supp. 2d 1147 (D. Kan. 2003).
· cites it 5× “Although the Smith court cites the treble damages provision as § 50-801, an examination of the historical statutes of Kansas shows that § 50-801 is a predecessor of § 50-161. 4 . The Williams action refers to Williams Poods, Inc.”
In Re Digit. Music Antitrust Litig., 812 F. Supp. 2d 390 (S.D.N.Y. 2011).
“Of the other states in which plaintiffs purportedly reside as pleaded in this action, Arizona, California, the District of Columbia, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin have passed Illinois Brick…”
In re Packaged Seafood Prods. Antitrust Litig., 338 F. Supp. 3d 1079 (S.D. Cal. 2018).
“(citing Kan. Stat. Ann. § 50-161 (b) ) ). Defendants argue that section 50-148 does not explicitly reference attorneys general and a parens patriae action must have some sort of affirmative statutory authorization.”
Reorganized FLI, Inc. v. The Williams Companies, Inc. (D. Kan. 2019).
· cites it 2× “At that time, § 50-108 addressed actual damages, and § 50-161 addressed treble damages. In the current version of the statute, § 50-161 is the only statutory provision addressing damages.”
— K.S.A. § 50-161(b) — 4 cases
Four B Corp. v. Daicel Chem. Indus., Ltd., 253 F. Supp. 2d 1147 (D. Kan. 2003).
“Although the Smith court cites the treble damages provision as § 50-801, an examination of the historical statutes of Kansas shows that § 50-801 is a predecessor of § 50-161. 4 . The Williams action refers to Williams Poods, Inc.”
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.