§122. Contracts, combinations and conspiracies in restraint of trade illegal; penalty
A. Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce in this state is illegal.
B. Whoever violates this Section shall be fined not more than five thousand dollars, or imprisoned, with or without hard labor, not more than three years, or both.
C. For purposes of this Title, a parent corporation, limited liability company, partnership, or partnership-in-commendam is not capable of conspiring with any subsidiary that it controls, and each such controlled subsidiary is not capable of conspiring with any other wholly owned subsidiary controlled by the same common parent.
D. For the purposes of this Part only, an officer or employee of a legal entity is not capable of conspiring with the legal entity or with another officer or employee of the legal entity when they are acting on behalf of the entity.
Amended by Acts 2003, No. 888, §1; Acts 2012, No. 782, §1, eff. August 1, 2012.
Notes of Decisions
La. Power & Light Co. v. United Gas Pipe Line Co., 493 So. 2d 1149 (La. 1986).
· cites it 39× “[1] Specifically, LP & L alleges that Pennzoil and United engaged in a course of conduct which amounted to a combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade in violation of La.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 51:122, and that such conduct also constituted monopolization, or an attempt or…”
Plaquemine Marine, Inc. v. Mercury Marine, 859 So. 2d 110 (La. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 16× “, Kenneth Hebert, and Helen Hebert (plaintiffs) sued Mercury Marine (defendant), alleging the following causes of action: breach of contract, detrimental reliance, intentional interference with contract, and violations of LSA-R.S. 51:122 (restraint of trade), LSA-R.”
Van Hoose v. Gravois, 70 So. 3d 1017 (La. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 7× “R.S. 51:122; and (4) interference with contractual relations.”
Tuban Petroleum, L.L.C. v. SIARC, Inc., 11 So. 3d 519 (La. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 6× “R.S. 51:122 or 123. The trial court denied Motiva’s exception, but ordered Tuban fifteen days to amend its petition.”
Morris v. Rental Tools, Inc., 435 So. 2d 528 (La. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 5× “, the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practice and Consumer Protection Act and LSA-R.S. 51:122 for restraint of trade, and on January 24, 1983, the lis pendens exception was withdrawn.”
La. Power & Light Co. v. United Gas Pipe Line Co., 478 So. 2d 1240 (La. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 10× “R.S. 51:122 et seq. Section 122 forbids "Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce within this state.”
Jefferson v. Chevron USA Inc., 713 So. 2d 785 (La. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 3× “LOUISIANA ANTITRUST STATUTE The plaintiffs allege violations by the defendant of LSA-R.S. 51:122, which provides: Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce in this state is illegal.”
Moss v. Guarisco, 409 So. 2d 323 (La. Ct. App. 1981).
· cites it 4× “R.S. 51:122, dealing with illegal conspiracy to restrain trade and commerce, had not been violated, since the second contract between Barbera and Guarisco was actually in promotion of competition, rather than restraining same.”
Econ. Carpets v. Better Bus. Bureau, 361 So. 2d 234 (La. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 6× “R.S. 51:122. After numerous legal maneuvers, Economy dismissed its action as to all defendants except BBB and St.”
La. Rev. Stat. § 51:122(A): 8 cases
Tuban Petroleum, L.L.C. v. SIARC, Inc., 11 So. 3d 519 (La. Ct. App. 2009).
“R.S. 51:122 or 123. The trial court denied Motiva’s exception, but ordered Tuban fifteen days to amend its petition.”
Van Hoose v. Gravois, 70 So. 3d 1017 (La. Ct. App. 2011).
“R.S. 51:122; and (4) interference with contractual relations.”
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.