Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 10
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 10, § 1102 (2026)

Conspiracies to monopolize trade

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Whoever shall monopolize or attempt to monopolize or combine or conspire with any other person or persons to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce of this State shall be guilty of a Class C crime.   [PL 1977, c. 175, §2 (RPR).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1977, c. 175, §2 (RPR).
The Revisor's Office cannot provide legal advice or interpretation of Maine law to the public.
If you need legal advice, please consult a qualified attorney.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1988–2020 · leading case: Int'l Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. Verso Paper Corp., 80 F. Supp. 3d 247 (D. Me. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Int'l Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. Verso Paper Corp., 80 F. Supp. 3d 247 (D. Me. 2015). · cites it 3× “§ 2 and 10 M.R.S. § 1102: By Verso’s attempt to shut down the Bucksport Mill and pending deal with AIM, it “creates a dangerous probability that Verso will achieve monopoly power and raise market prices,” and constitutes conspiracy to monopolize; and 3.”
Onat v. Penobscot Bay Med. Ctr., 574 A.2d 872 (Me. 1990). “In a similar vein, Onat has not put forth any factual evidence that the defendants in this case possessed the specific intent to monopolize necessary to substantiate claims of monopolization, attempt to monopolize, and conspiracy to monopolize under either the state antitrust…”
Hottentot v. Mid-Maine Med. Ctr., 549 A.2d 365 (Me. 1988). · cites it 2× “10 M.R.S.A. § 1102 (1980). This statute likewise encompasses hospitals and prohibits any attempt to exclude competing doctors from economic benefits.”
Tri-State Rubbish, Inc. v. Waste Mgmt., Inc., 803 F. Supp. 451 (D. Me. 1992). “Maine Trade Regulations Count IV alleges that actions of the Waste Management Defendants and MMWAC discussed above are in violation of Maine Trade Regulations, 10 M.R.S.A. §§ 1102, 1103, 1104, 1105, which prohibit contracts in restraint of trade, monopolies, conspiracies to…”
Patriot Mech., LLC v. Maine Controls, LLC (Me. Super. Ct 2020). “Count VIII alleges an antitrust violation under 10 M.R.S. § 1102, which provides: “Whoever shall monopolize or attempt to monopolize or combine or conspire with any other persons to monopolize any part of the trade of commerce of this State shall be guilty of a Class C crime.”
Melnick v. Microsoft Corp. (Me. Super. Ct 2001). “STATUTORY LANGUAGE Maine’s Mini-Sherman Act provides Every contract, combination in the form of trusts or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce in’this State, is declared to be illegal .... 10 M.R.S.A. § 1101 (emphasis added).”
Env't Exch. v. Casella Waste Sys. (Me. Super. Ct 2005). “5 1102, and (2) conspiracy to monopolize in violation of 10 M.R.S.A. § 1102. Section 1102, the statutory predicate to both causes of action, makes it unlawful for any entity to "monopolize or attempt to monopolize or combine or conspire with any other person or persons to…”
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.