Any person, corporation, partnership, firm or association of persons and the officers and representatives of the corporation or association violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall forfeit not less than one hundred dollars ($100.00) nor more than two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) for every such violation. Each month in which such person, corporation or association shall violate this chapter shall be a separate violation, the forfeiture and penalty in such case to be recovered alone by suit in the name of the state on the relation of the attorney general and by the consent of the attorney general suits may be brought by any district attorney, such suits to be brought in any court of competent jurisdiction.
Codes, 1892, § 4439; 1906, § 5004; Hemingway's 1917, § 3286; 1930, § 3439; 1942, § 1091; Laws, 1926, ch. 182.
Notes of Decisions
Moore Ex Rel. Mississippi v. Abbott Labs., Inc., 900 F. Supp. 26 (S.D. Miss. 1995).
· cites it 8× “Plaintiff seeks recovery for such violations under Miss.Code Ann. § 75-21-7, which sets forth certain penalties for violation of the Mississippi antitrust laws, and Miss.”
Hood v. F. Hoffman-La Roche, Ltd., 639 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2009).
· cites it 4× “At the time this lawsuit was filed, the second section, Miss.Code § 75-21-7, was titled “Penalty for Violation of Antitrust Laws” 6 and mandated a forfeiture penalty in an amount from $100 to $2,000 for every violation of the Mississippi Antitrust Act.”
Hood Ex Rel. Mississippi v. Microsoft Corp., 428 F. Supp. 2d 537 (S.D. Miss. 2006).
· cites it 2× “, for unjust enrichment, violation of the Mississippi Antitrust Act, violation of the Mississippi Consumer Protection Act, and civil conspiracy) are brought pursuant to the State’s law-enforcement authority, See Miss. Code Ann. § 75-21-7 (authorizing the Attorney General to…”
State of Mississippi v. AU Optronics Corp., 701 F.3d 796 (5th Cir. 2012).
· cites it 2× “§ 75-24-15 (4), and the MAA does not require that suits brought by the State satisfy any requirements that resemble the adequacy, numerosity, commonality, and typicality requirements of class action lawsuits under Rule 23, see Miss. Code Ann. § 75-21-7 . It is thus clear that…”
California v. Infineon Tech. AG, 531 F. Supp. 2d 1124 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
“§ 75-24-9 (limiting Attorney General actions to those seeking injunctive relief only); Miss. Code Ann. § 75-21-7 (setting forth penalty for violation of statute).”
Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp., 876 F. Supp. 2d 758 (S.D. Miss. 2012).
“§ 75-21-7. “This statute clearly gives the Attorney General of the State the authority to bring suit in the name of the State for violations of Mississippi antitrust law.”
Hood v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 958 F. Supp. 2d 681 (S.D. Miss. 2013).
· cites it 2× “§ 75-24-15(4), and the MAA does not require that suits brought by the State satisfy any requirements that resemble the adequacy, numerosity, commonality, and typicality requirements of class action lawsuits under Rule 23, see Miss.Code Ann. § 75-21-7. It is thus clear that…”
Hood v. F. Hoffman-Laroche, Ltd. (D.D.C. 2009).
· cites it 4× “At the time this lawsuit was filed, the second section, Miss. Code § 75-21-7, was titled “Penalty for Violation of Antitrust Laws”6 and mandated a forfeiture penalty in an amount from $100 to $2,000 for every violation of the Mississippi Antitrust Act.”
State v. Yazaki North Am., Inc., Leoni Wiring Sys., Inc., Leonische Holding, Inc., G.S.W. Mfg., Inc., G.S. Wiring Sys., Inc., Denso Int'l Am., Inc., & Am. Furukawa, Inc. (Miss. 2020).
· cites it 2× “2016). Section 75-21-1 makes it illegal to create or become part of a trust so defined, subjecting violators to criminal penalties.”
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.