Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 325D. RESTRAINT OF TRADE
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 325D.49 (2026)

Citation

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Sections 325D.49 to 325D.66 may be cited as the "Minnesota Antitrust Law of 1971."

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1981–2025 · leading case: State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Philip Morris Inc., 551 N.W.2d 490 (Minn. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Philip Morris Inc., 551 N.W.2d 490 (Minn. 1996). · cites it 2× “The antitrust statute states: Any person, any governmental body, or the state of Minnesota or any of its subdivisions or agencies, injured directly or in *496 directly by a violation of sections 325D.49 to 325D.66, shall recover three times the actual damages sustained, together…”
Lorix v. Crompton Corp., 736 N.W.2d 619 (Minn. 2007). “In any subsequent action arising from the same conduct, the court may take any steps necessary to avoid duplicative recovery against a defendant.”
In re Warfarin Sodium Antitrust Litig., 212 F.R.D. 231 (D. Del. 2002). “; Minnesota Antitrust Act of 1961, Minn.Stat. §§ 325D.49, et seq.; New Jersey Stat.”
In Re Lorazepam & Clorazepate Antitrust Litig., 467 F. Supp. 2d 74 (D.D.C. 2006). “93A § 2(a) (2004); Minn.Stat. § 325D.49 (2004). 5 To prevail on this claim, Plaintiffs were required to show by a preponderance of the evidence that: (i) the Defendants entered into an agreement; (ii) the agreement unreasonably restrained trade in an appropriately defined…”
Reg'l Multiple Listing Serv. of Minnesota, Inc. v. Am. Home Realty Network, Inc., 960 F. Supp. 2d 958 (D. Minnesota 2013). · cites it 2× “Accordingly, the Court finds that AHRN has sufficiently alleged harm and anticompetitive effects, and it will deny the motion to dismiss AHRN’s Sherman Act counterclaim.”
Morris v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., 386 N.W.2d 233 (Minn. 1986). “29), the antitrust act (sections 325D.49 to 325D.66), section 325F.”
State v. DeWitt, 389 N.W.2d 722 (Minn. 1986). · cites it 9× “An action under sections 325D.49 to 325D.66, shall be forever barred unless commenced within four years of the date upon which the cause of action arose.”
Reg'l Multiple Listing Serv. of Minnesota, Inc. v. Am. Home Realty Network, Inc., 9 F. Supp. 3d 1032 (D. Minnesota 2014). · cites it 4× “COUNTERCLAIMS After RMLS brought its initial complaint against AHRN for copyright violations, 2 AHRN brought counterclaims against RMLS, alleging violations of the Sherman Act, 15 U.”
Hoffman v. Delta Dental Plan of Minnesota, 517 F. Supp. 564 (D. Minnesota 1981). · cites it 3× “57 provides for the recovery of treble damages by “[a]ny person, any governmental body, or the state of Minnesota or any of its subdivisions or agencies, injured by a violation of sections 325D.49 to 325D.66 ...” Minn.Stat.”
Valspar Corp. v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., 15 F. Supp. 3d 928 (D. Minnesota 2014). “("Cristal”); they have separately moved to dismiss claims for violation of Minnesota Statutes § 325D.49 (Count II) and for unjust enrichment (Count III).”
DeRoche v. All Am. Bottling Corp., 38 F. Supp. 2d 1102 (D. Minnesota 1998). “16), the antitrust act (sections 325D.49 to 325D.66), section 325F.”
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Ri-Mel, Inc., 417 N.W.2d 102 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). “29), the antitrust act (sections 325D.49 to 324D.66), section 325F.”
Show all 31 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.