Missouri Revised Statutes
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 416.011 (2026)
Title of act
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
416.011. Title of act. — Sections 416.011 to 416.161 may be known and shall be cited as the "Missouri Antitrust Law".
--------
(L. 1974 S.B. 424)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1976–2025 · leading case: Fischer, Spuhl, Herzwurm & Assocs., Inc. v. Forrest T. Jones & Co., 586 S.W.2d 310 (Mo. 1979).
Fischer, Spuhl, Herzwurm & Assocs., Inc. v. Forrest T. Jones & Co., 586 S.W.2d 310 (Mo. 1979). “Arguably in part because the old antitrust statute did not apply to service contracts, but whatever the reason, the General Assembly enacted the Missouri antitrust law of 1974 (the Act), §§ 416.011 to 416.161, RSMo 1978, with a much broader scope of application.”
In re Epipen, 336 F. Supp. 3d 1256 (D. Kan. 2018). “Instead, the Class Complaint relies on Mo. Rev. Stat. § 416.011 , et seq. And, as several courts have held, "Missouri's antitrust laws .”
Essex v. Getty Oil Co., 661 S.W.2d 544 (Mo. Ct. App. 1983). “Sections 416.011 to 416.161 shall be construed in harmony with ruling judicial interpretations of comparable federal anti-trust statutes.”
In Re New Motor Vehs. Canadian Exp. Antitrust Litig., 350 F. Supp. 2d 160 (D. Me. 2004). “Although the antitrust statute, Mo.Rev.Stat. §§ 416.011 — .161, does not address the issue precisely, the court relied upon a federal harmonization provision in the Missouri antitrust statute, Mo.”
Metts v. Clark Oil & Refining Corp., 618 S.W.2d 698 (Mo. Ct. App. 1981). “They alleged in six counts of their first amended petition violation of the Missouri Antitrust Law, §§ 416.011 through 416.161, RSMo 1978, as well as common law counts of misrepresentation, economic coercion, breach of contract, interference with business and violation of…”
Zipper v. Health Midwest, 978 S.W.2d 398 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998). “Whether Appellants adduced sufficient evidence to defeat summary judgment on the claim under the Missouri Antitrust Law is first examined. Section 416.031.1, RSMo 1994, provides that “[e]very contract, combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce in this state is…”
In re Restasis (Cyclosporine Ophthalmic Emulsion) Antitrust Litig., 355 F. Supp. 3d 145 (E.D.N.Y 2018). “Unlike Missouri's antitrust statute, Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 416.011 , et seq. , the MMPA permits recovery by indirect purchasers.”
Duvall v. Silvers, Asher, Sher & McLaren, M.D.'s, Neurology, P.C., 998 S.W.2d 821 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999). “who is injured in his business or property by reason of anything forbidden or declared unlawful by sections 416.011 to 416.161 may sue” for damages sustained by him or for injunction to enjoin the unlawful practices.”
Fix v. Fix Material Co., Inc., 538 S.W.2d 351 (Mo. Ct. App. 1976). “The Missouri Anti-trust Law was substantially revamped in 1974 and may be found at §§ 416.011 to 416.161, Laws 1974.”
JBK, Inc. v. City of Kansas City, Mo., 641 F. Supp. 893 (W.D. Mo. 1986). “See generally Mo.Rev.Stat. §§ 416.011 to 416.161, inclusive.”
Missouri v. Nat'l Org. for Women, Inc., 467 F. Supp. 289 (W.D. Mo. 1979). “141, RSMo, provides: “Sections 416.011 to 416.161 shall be construed in harmony with ruling judicial interpretations of comparable federal antitrust statutes.”
Clark Oil & Refining Corp. v. Ashcroft, 639 S.W.2d 594 (Mo. 1982). “to enforce the provisions of sections 416.011 to 416.161 [of the Missouri Antitrust Law] or in actions brought in the federal courts under any federal statute pertaining to antitrust .”
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.