Mo. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 416
Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 416.141 (2026)

How construed as to comparable federal acts

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

  416.141.  How construed as to comparable federal acts. — Sections 416.011 to 416.161 shall be construed in harmony with ruling judicial interpretations of comparable federal antitrust statutes.

­­--------

(L. 1974 S.B. 424)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1979–2025 · leading case: Fischer, Spuhl, Herzwurm & Assocs., Inc. v. Forrest T. Jones & Co., 586 S.W.2d 310 (Mo. 1979).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Fischer, Spuhl, Herzwurm & Assocs., Inc. v. Forrest T. Jones & Co., 586 S.W.2d 310 (Mo. 1979). · cites it 8× “" § 416.141, RSMo 1978. The legislature, through this section and the Act's substantive provisions based on federal antitrust laws, intended to provide a ready body of precedent for interpreting the law and a single standard of business conduct already known and acquiesced in by…”
Essex v. Getty Oil Co., 661 S.W.2d 544 (Mo. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 8× “" No Missouri authority has been cited by plaintiffs holding price discrimination to be a violation of § 416.031.”
Zipper v. Health Midwest, 978 S.W.2d 398 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 5× “Under directive of section 416.141, RSMo 1994, federal cases interpreting Sec.”
In re Packaged Seafood Prods. Antitrust Litig., 242 F. Supp. 3d 1033 (S.D. Cal. 2017). · cites it 2× “1999) (citing *1080 Mo. Rev. Stat. § 416.141 ). By contrast, the MMPA has no such clause, and the Gibbons Court has specifically permitted indirect-purchaser recovery under the statute.”
In Re New Motor Vehs. Canadian Exp. Antitrust Litig., 350 F. Supp. 2d 160 (D. Me. 2004). · cites it 2× “161, does not address the issue precisely, the court relied upon a federal harmonization provision in the Missouri antitrust statute, Mo.Rev. Stat. § 416.141, 50 and found the plaintiffs claim indistinguishable from the claims under the Clayton Act in Illinois Brick.”
JBK, Inc. v. City of Kansas City, Mo., 641 F. Supp. 893 (W.D. Mo. 1986). · cites it 8× “It is true, as plaintiffs note, that Mo.Rev.Stat. § 416.141 specifies that the state’s antitrust statutes “shall be construed in harmony with ruling judicial interpretations of comparable federal antitrust statutes;” and also true that under federal antitrust law municipalities…”
Metts v. Clark Oil & Refining Corp., 618 S.W.2d 698 (Mo. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 4× “Plaintiffs’ second point on appeal contends that Clark Monopolized, attempted to monopolize and conspired to monopolize trade or commerce in Missouri in violation of § 416.”
Defino v. Civic Ctr. Corp., 718 S.W.2d 505 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 4× “” § 416.141 RSMo 1978. Fischer, Etc. v. Forrest T.”
North Kansas City Hosp. Bd. of Trs. v. St. Luke's Northland Hosp., 984 S.W.2d 113 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 3× “Section 416.141 provides that Missouri’s antitrust provision “shall be construed in harmony with ruling judicial interpretations of comparable federal antitrust statutes.”
Missouri v. Nat'l Org. for Women, Inc., 467 F. Supp. 289 (W.D. Mo. 1979). · cites it 3× “Section 416.141, RSMo, provides: “Sections 416.”
Duvall v. Silvers, Asher, Sher & McLaren, M.D.'s, Neurology, P.C., 998 S.W.2d 821 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 3× “Section 416.141, RSMo 1994, requires that Missouri’s antitrust statutes be construed “in harmony with ruling judicial interpretations of comparable federal antitrust statutes.”
Marc's Restaurant, Inc. v. CBS, INC., 730 S.W.2d 582 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 3× “Section 416.141 RSMo 1986 requires that Missouri’s antitrust statute be construed in accordance with federal law.”
Show all 28 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.