If two (2) or more persons conspire to prevent another person or other persons from trading or doing business with any merchant or other business and as a result of said conspiracy said persons induce or encourage any individual or individuals to cease doing business with any merchant or other person, and when such conspiracy is formed and effectuated because of a reasonable grievance of the conspirators over which the said merchant or place of business boycotted or against which a boycott is attempted has no direct control or no legal authority to correct, or when the conspiracy results from such alleged grievance against the merchant or other person boycotted when no notice of such grievance has been given the merchant or party boycotted and no reasonable opportunity to correct such alleged grievance has been given such merchant or other person against whom the conspiracy was formed, then each of such persons shall be guilty of the crime of unlawful restraint of trade and shall be fined not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) or imprisoned for not more than two (2) years and in addition each such person shall be liable in civil action for any damages suffered by said merchant or place of business so wrongfully boycotted and also for attorney fees incurred by said merchant or person boycotted in a civil action to recover damages.
Codes, 1942, § 2059.3; Laws, 1968, ch. 344, § 3, eff. 7/30/1968.
Notes of Decisions
Nat'l Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886 (1982).
“8 See Miss. Code Ann. § 97-23-85 (1972). The chancellor found: “The testimony in the case at bar clearly shows that the principal objective of the boycott was to force the white merchants of Port Gibson and Claiborne County to bring pressure upon governing authorities to grant…”
NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 393 So. 2d 1290 (Miss. 1980).
· cites it 4× “Its constitutionality is vigorously attacked by appellants who assert that it is contrary to the right of free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
Johnson v. Mississippi, 421 U.S. 213 (1975).
“That same grand jury at the same time returned indictments against the six remaining persons, petitioners here; two of the petitioners were indicted for violation of Miss. Code Ann. § 97-23-83 (1972), and the other four with violation of Miss.”
Lonnie Echols v. Joel T. Parker, State of Mississippi, 909 F.2d 795 (5th Cir. 1990).
“Saucier discussed the problem with the district attorney for the Fourth Circuit District of Mississippi, Frank Carlton, and then instituted criminal proceedings against Echols in Sunflower County Justice Court under Miss.Code Ann. § 97-23-85 (1972), an anti-boycott statute.”
Concerned Citizens of Vicksburg v. Sills, 567 F.2d 646 (5th Cir. 1978).
“The grand jury returned indictments against two of the plaintiffs for violation of Miss.Code Ann. § 97-23-83 (1972), and against four others for violation of Miss.”
Searle v. Johnson, 646 P.2d 682 (Utah 1982).
“Miss.Code Ann., § 97-23-85 (1972). 14 . See United States v.”
Sidag Aktiengesellschaft v. Smoked Foods Prods. Co., 776 F.2d 1270 (5th Cir. 1985).
· cites it 3× “In addition, the fifth count referred to the preceding four counts and alleged the violation by defendants of Miss. Code § 97-23-85 (1972), which prohibits and punishes secondary boycott conspiracies.”
Unknown, 40 F.3d 777.
· cites it 2× “The district attorney acted expressly pursuant to Miss.Code Ann. § 97-23-85 (1972), an anti-boycott statute.”
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.