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

Minn. Stat. § 325D.52 (2026)

Establishment, Maintenance, Or Use Of Monopoly Power

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

The establishment, maintenance, or use of, or any attempt to establish, maintain, or use monopoly power over any part of trade or commerce by any person or persons for the purpose of affecting competition or controlling, fixing, or maintaining prices is unlawful.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1981–2025 · leading case: Howard v. Minnesota Timberwolves Basketball Ltd. P'ship, 636 N.W.2d 551 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Howard v. Minnesota Timberwolves Basketball Ltd. P'ship, 636 N.W.2d 551 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 11× “51 (2000); 4) establishment, maintenance or use of monopoly power in violation of Minn.Stat. § 325D.52 (2000); and 5) price fixing, allocation of markets and concerted refusal to deal in violation of Minn.”
Inline Packaging, LLC v. Graphic Packaging Int'l, Inc., 164 F. Supp. 3d 1117 (D. Minnesota 2016). · cites it 4× “Inline asserts five claims against Graphic: (1) Count I — Tortious Interference with Prospective Business Relations; (2) Count II — Tortious Interference with Existing Contractual Relations; (3) Count III — Misappropriation of Trade Secrets; (4) Count IV — Violation of Minn.…”
Insignia Sys., Inc. v. News Am. Mktg. In-Store, Inc., 661 F. Supp. 2d 1039 (D. Minnesota 2009). · cites it 5× “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.”
Inline Packaging, LLC v. Graphic Packaging Int'l, LLC, 351 F. Supp. 3d 1187 (D. Me. 2018). · cites it 2× “Inline asserts five claims against Graphic: Count I-Tortious Interference with Prospective Business Relations; Count II-Tortious Interference with Existing Contractual Relations; Count III-Misappropriation of Trade Secrets; Count IV-Violation of Minn.”
Sheet Metal Workers Local 441 Health & Welfare Plan v. Glaxosmithkline, PLC, 737 F. Supp. 2d 380 (E.D. Pa. 2010). · cites it 2× “Minnesota Plaintiff UFCW asserts a cause of action for GSK’s alleged violation of Minnesota’s antitrust statute, codified at Minn. Stat. §§ 325D.52, et seq. SAC ¶ 187.”
United States v. Microsoft Corp., 87 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2000). · cites it 3× “773 (1989); Minn.Stat. § 325D.52 (1998); N.M. Stat. § 57-1-2 (Michie 1995); N.”
Inline Packaging, LLC v. Graphic Packaging, Int'l, 962 F.3d 1015 (8th Cir. 2020). · cites it 2× “5 In its complaint, Inline listed tortious interference with prospective business relations as Count I; tortious interference with existing contractual relations as Count II; illegal monopoly power, in violation of state law—Minn. Stat. § 325D.52—as Count IV; and illegal…”
Advanced Training Sys. Inc. v. Caswell Equip. Co., 352 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 1984). · cites it 2× “In Count I of their counterclaim, defendants sought treble damages for plaintiffs’ alleged attempt to monopolize in violation of Minn.Stat. § 325D.52 (1982). Defendants claim there was sufficient evidence at trial from which the jury could have found that plaintiffs brought this…”
In Re Chocolate Confectionary Antitrust Litig., 602 F. Supp. 2d 538 (M.D. Penn. 2009). “Minn.Stat. § 325D.52. IV. New York Donnelly Act, N.”
Minnesota Twins P'ship v. State Ex Rel. Hatch, 592 N.W.2d 847 (Minn. 1999). · cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 325D.52 (1998). 7 .Minn.Stat.”
In Re G-Fees Antitrust Litig., 584 F. Supp. 2d 26 (D.D.C. 2008). “Accordingly, defendants’ motion to dismiss will be denied as to the Arizona plaintiffs’ claims arising under the Arizona antitrust statutes.”
James M. King & Assocs., Inc. v. G.D. Van Wagenen Co., 717 F. Supp. 667 (D. Minnesota 1989). · cites it 2× “§ 2 and Minn.Stat. § 325D.52 (1986) as well as a violation of § 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.”
Show all 19 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.