Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 325D.51 (2026)
Unreasonable Restraint Of Trade Or Commerce
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official)
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
A contract, combination, or conspiracy between two or more persons in unreasonable restraint of trade or commerce is unlawful.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 35
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1981–2024 · leading case: State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Alpine Air Prods., Inc., 490 N.W.2d 888 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992).
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Alpine Air Prods., Inc., 490 N.W.2d 888 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992). “Minn.Stat. § 325D.51. Per se violations of Minnesota antitrust laws are enumerated in Minn.”
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Road Constructors, Inc., 474 N.W.2d 224 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991). “After the contractors were awarded one of the contracts, the state brought an antitrust action against the contractors, alleging violations of Minn.Stat. § 325D.51 (1988), which prohibits unreasonable restraints of trade, and Minn.”
Metro. Transp. Network, Inc. v. Collaborative Student Transp. of Minnesota, ..., 6 N.W.3d 771 (Minn. Ct. App. 2024). “The verified complaint includes 13 counts: declaratory judgment; breach of illusory contract; breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; two counts of tortious interference with contracts; two counts of tortious interference with a prospective business…”
Howard v. Minnesota Timberwolves Basketball Ltd. P'ship, 636 N.W.2d 551 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001). “Howard sued the team and Ogden alleging: 1) tortious interference with prospective business relations; 2) tortious interference with contract; 3) unreasonable restraint of trade in violation of Minn. Stat. § 325D.51 (2000); 4) establishment, maintenance or use of monopoly power…”
Insignia Sys., Inc. v. News Am. Mktg. In-Store, Inc., 661 F. Supp. 2d 1039 (D. Minnesota 2009). “In short, Insignia contends that NAMI purchased the right from retailers to exclude competitors like Insignia and FGI from offering their own services to retail stores.”
James M. King & Assocs., Inc. v. G.D. Van Wagenen Co., 717 F. Supp. 667 (D. Minnesota 1989). “§ 1 and Minn.Stat. §§ 325D.51 and 325D.53, subd. 1(3) (1986).”
Am. Comput. Trust Leasing v. Jack Farrell Implement Co., 763 F. Supp. 1473 (D. Minnesota 1991). “ADP’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the Antitrust Conspiracy Claims The defendants accuse ADP, IH and Case of conspiracy and restraint of trade in violation of Minn.Stat. § 325D.51 and § 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.”
A. Gay Jenson Farms Co. v. Cargill, Inc., 309 N.W.2d 285 (Minn. 1981). “Count I of plaintiffs’ complaint, which alleged that Cargill and Warren had violated the Minnesota Anti-Trust Law, Minn.Stat. § 325D.51 (1980), was dismissed by the court.”
Ellingson & Assocs., Inc. v. Keefe, 410 N.W.2d 857 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). “See Minn.Stat. § 325D.51 (1986). However, when the trial court dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, the court did not make any findings or conclusions as to whether the antitrust claims were within the court’s jurisdiction.”
Kessel v. Monongalia Cnty. Gen. Hosp. Co., 648 S.E.2d 366 (W. Va. 2007). “Minn.Stat. § 325D.51, at issue in Alpine Air provided "a contract, combination, or conspiracy between two or more persons in unreasonable restraint of trade is unlawful.”
Minnesota Twins P'ship v. State Ex Rel. Hatch, 592 N.W.2d 847 (Minn. 1999). “Minn.Stat. § 325D.51 (1998). 6 . Minn.Stat.”
Sherr v. Healtheast Care Sys., 262 F. Supp. 3d 869 (D. Minnesota 2017). “Sherr also alleges violations of Minnesota antitrust law under Minn. Stat. §§ 325D.51 and 325D.52. See FAC ¶¶ 162-69, “Minnesota anti-trust law is interpreted consistent with the federal court’s construction of the Sherman Act.”
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.