La. R.S. » RS
Louisiana Revised Statutes & Codes

La. Rev. Stat. § 51:123 (2026)

Monopolizing trade or commerce prohibited; penalty

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section LA-LEGlegis.la.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§123.  Monopolizing trade or commerce prohibited; penalty

No person shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine, or conspire with any other person to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce within this state.  

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.  

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 33 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1973–2024 · leading case: State Ex Rel. Ieyoub v. Racetrac Petroleum, Inc., 790 So. 2d 673 (La. Ct. App. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State Ex Rel. Ieyoub v. Racetrac Petroleum, Inc., 790 So. 2d 673 (La. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 15× “R.S. 51:123, La.R.S. 51:125(C)(2), La.R.S.”
La. Power & Light Co. v. United Gas Pipe Line Co., 493 So. 2d 1149 (La. 1986). · cites it 12× “[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…”
S. TOOL & SUPPLY v. Beerman Precision, Inc., 862 So. 2d 271 (La. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 6× “" LSA-R.S. 51:123. The purpose of the Exception of No Cause of Action is to *277 determine whether in its petition plaintiff has alleged a valid cause of action.”
Plaquemine Marine, Inc. v. Mercury Marine, 859 So. 2d 110 (La. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 6× “51:122 (restraint of trade), LSA-R.S. 51:123 (monopoly), LSA-R.S. 51:331 (discriminatory pricing), LSA-R.”
HPC Biologicals, Inc. v. UnitedHealthcare of Louisiana, Inc., 194 So. 3d 784 (La. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 3× “51:122 and R.S. 51:123, a plaintiff is required to identify the particular market that is the subject of the antitrust claim.”
State v. Astra Zeneca AB, 249 So. 3d 38 (La. Ct. App. 2018). “R.S. 51:123. LUTPA outlaws unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.”
United States v. Microsoft Corp., 87 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2000). · cites it 2× “175 (Michie 1996); La.Rev.Stat. §§ 51:123, 51:1405 (West 1986); Md.”
Jefferson v. Chevron USA Inc., 713 So. 2d 785 (La. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “Plaintiffs' claims against Chevron also rest on the theory that defendant's actions constitute monopolized trade in violation of LSA-R.S. 51:123, which provides: No person shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine, or conspire with any other person to monopolize any…”
La. Power & Light Co. v. United Gas Pipe Line Co., 478 So. 2d 1240 (La. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 5× “Unilateral activity is regulated by R.S. 51:123 and Section 2 of the Sherman Act.”
State v. Teva Pharm. Indus., Ltd., 242 So. 3d 597 (La. Ct. App. 2018). “R.S. 51:123. LUTPA outlaws unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.”
Taxicab Ins. Store, LLC v. Am. Serv. Ins. Co., 224 So. 3d 451 (La. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 4× “R.S. 51:123. La. R.S. 51:122(A) provides that “[ejvery contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce in this state is illegal.”
Tuban Petroleum, L.L.C. v. SIARC, Inc., 11 So. 3d 519 (La. Ct. App. 2009). “R.S. 51:123 “No person shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine, or conspire with any other person to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce within this state.”
Show all 33 citing cases →
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.