Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 416.031 (2026)

Restraint of trade prohibited

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

416.031. Restraint of trade prohibited. — 1. Every contract, combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce in this state is unlawful.

2. It is unlawful to monopolize, attempt to monopolize, or conspire to monopolize trade or commerce in this state.

3. It is unlawful for any person^* engaged in trade or commerce in this state, in the course of such trade or commerce, to lease or make a sale or contract for sale of any commodity, whether patented or unpatented, for use, consumption, or resale within this state, or fix a price charged therefor, or discount from, or rebate upon, such price, on the condition, agreement, or understanding that the lessee or purchaser thereof shall not use or deal in the commodities of a competitor or competitors of the lessor or seller, where the effect of such lease, sale, or contract for such sale or such condition, agreement, or understanding may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of trade or commerce in this state.

--------

(L. 1974 S.B. 424)

*Word "persons" appears in original rolls.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 35 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1976–2025 · leading case: Healthcare Servs. of the Ozarks, Inc. v. Copeland, 198 S.W.3d 604 (Mo. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Healthcare Servs. of the Ozarks, Inc. v. Copeland, 198 S.W.3d 604 (Mo. 2006). · cites it 6× “See section 416.031. 4 Missouri courts balance these concerns by enforcing non-compete agreements in certain limited circumstances.”

Metts v. Clark Oil & Refining Corp., 618 S.W.2d 698 (Mo. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 18× “The first numbered paragraph of each of the supposed common law counts of the first amended petition specifically includes all the allegations of Count I, thus realleg-ing conspiracy, attempt to monopolize and monopolization in violation of the Missouri Antitrust Law.”

Whelan Sec. Co. v. Kennebrew, 379 S.W.3d 835 (Mo. 2012). · cites it 3× “A reasonable covenant in writing promising not to solicit, recruit, hire or otherwise interfere with the employment of one or more employees shall be enforceable and not a restraint of trade pursuant to subsection 1 of section 416.031, RSMo, if: [[Image here]] (3) Between an…”

North Kansas City Hosp. Bd. of Trs. v. St. Luke's Northland Hosp., 984 S.W.2d 113 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 8× “031(2) provides that “[i]t is unlawful to monopolize, attempt to monopolize, or conspire to monopolize trade or commerce in this state.” § 416.031(2). Chapter 2 is the analogous provision of the Sherman Act which makes it an offense to monopolize, attempt to monopolize, or…”

Fischer, Spuhl, Herzwurm & Assocs., Inc. v. Forrest T. Jones & Co., 586 S.W.2d 310 (Mo. 1979). · cites it 4× “010, RSMo 1969, of the former antitrust statute and § 416.031, RSMo 1978, of the new antitrust statute, by engaging in unlawful contracts, combinations, undertakings or conspiracies that constitute an unreasonable restraint of trade or commerce.”

Zipper v. Health Midwest, 978 S.W.2d 398 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 4× “” § 416.031, RSMo 1994. In order to state a violation of section 416.”

Am. Eagle Waste Indus., LLC v. St. Louis Cnty., 379 S.W.3d 813 (Mo. 2012). · cites it 3× “Section 416.031, RSMo Supp.2010, states that “[e]very contract, combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce in this state is unlawful.”

Kansas City Urology, P.A. v. United Healthcare Servs., 261 S.W.3d 7 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 3× “The physicians and medical organizations sued Blue Cross and United Healthcare, asserting that the defendants had engaged in price fixing and monopolization in violation of antitrust provisions in Section 416.031, RSMo 2000. The defendants filed motions to compel arbitration of…”

Johnston v. Norrell Health Care, Inc., 835 S.W.2d 565 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 4× “On October 2, 1990, plaintiff filed a petition alleging that certain “wrongful” agreements between defendants and between defendants and local hospitals constitute a civil conspiracy and restraint of trade in violation of § 416.031 RSMo 1986. Defendants filed motions to dismiss…”

Gold Cross Ambulance v. City of Kansas City, 538 F. Supp. 956 (W.D. Mo. 1982). · cites it 4× “Count III alleges violations of the Missouri antitrust statutes, Mo.Rev.Stat. § 416.031 et seq., which outlaw conspiracies in restraint of trade and conduct taken in an attempt to further a monopoly.”

Trone Health Servs., Inc. v. Express Scripts Holding Co., 974 F.3d 845 (8th Cir. 2020). “1988) (citing Mo. Rev. Stat. § 416.031 ). -17- prices or destroy competition; (2) predatory or anticompetitive conduct undertaken by the defendant directed to accomplishing the unlawful purpose; and (3) a dangerous probability of success.”

Schmersahl, Treloar & Co., PC v. McHugh, 28 S.W.3d 345 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 3× “Section 416.031 RSMo (1994). “A promise is in restraint of trade if its performance would limit competition in any business or restrict the promisor in the exercise of a gainful occupation.”

Show all 35 citing cases →

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 416.031(1) — 2 cases

Metts v. Clark Oil & Refining Corp., 618 S.W.2d 698 (Mo. Ct. App. 1981). “The first numbered paragraph of each of the supposed common law counts of the first amended petition specifically includes all the allegations of Count I, thus realleg-ing conspiracy, attempt to monopolize and monopolization in violation of the Missouri Antitrust Law.”

Mark Aero, Inc. v. Trans World Airlines, 411 F. Supp. 610 (W.D. Mo. 1976).

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 416.031(2) — 3 cases

North Kansas City Hosp. Bd. of Trs. v. St. Luke's Northland Hosp., 984 S.W.2d 113 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998). “031(2) provides that “[i]t is unlawful to monopolize, attempt to monopolize, or conspire to monopolize trade or commerce in this state.” § 416.031(2). Chapter 2 is the analogous provision of the Sherman Act which makes it an offense to monopolize, attempt to monopolize, or…”

Defino v. Civic Ctr. Corp., 718 S.W.2d 505 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986).

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 416.031(3) — 1 case

Zelson v. Phoenix Mut. Life Ins. Co., 410 F. Supp. 1343 (E.D. Mo. 1976).

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.