Neb. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 59
Nebraska Revised Statutes

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 59-801 (2026)

Restraint of trade or commerce; unlawful; penalty

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NE-LEGnebraskalegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce, within this state, is hereby declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any such contract or engage in any such combination or conspiracy shall be deemed guilty of a Class IV felony.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1932–2026 · leading case: Heath Consultants, Inc. v. Precision Instruments, Inc., 527 N.W.2d 596 (Neb. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Heath Consultants, Inc. v. Precision Instruments, Inc., 527 N.W.2d 596 (Neb. 1995). · cites it 10× “ANALYSIS Precision relies on Nebraska's unlawful restraint of trade act, Neb.Rev.Stat. §§ 59-801 through 59-831 (Reissue 1993).”
Kanne v. Visa U.S.A. Inc., 723 N.W.2d 293 (Neb. 2006). · cites it 4× “(MasterCard), violated provisions of Nebraska’s unlawful restraint of trade statutes (referred to as the “Junkin Act”), Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 59-801 to 59-831 (Reissue 2004) and Neb.”
McGraw Elec. Co. v. Lewis & Smith Drug Co., 68 N.W.2d 608 (Neb. 1955). · cites it 12× “1943, and the other appears in the revision of 1943 as section 59-801, R. R. S. 1943. The reason for this 9th section being placed as it is in the revision is that the act, except this one section, was new, whereas this section was amendatory of section 59-801, Comp.”
Diesel Serv., Inc. v. Accessory Sales, Inc., 317 N.W.2d 719 (Neb. 1982). · cites it 6× “" The jury found the defendant had conspired with Cranston to injure the plaintiff's business, restrain trade in R-W precleaners, create a monopoly, and acquire the plaintiff's business by unfair business practices as alleged by the plaintiff.”
ACI Worldwide Corp. v. Baldwin Hackett & Meeks, 296 Neb. 818 (Neb. 2017). · cites it 2× “ACI filed motions to vacate the 2014 and 2015 judgments, reopen the evidence, and grant ACI a new trial on the basis 1 See Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 59-801 to 59-831 (Reissue 2010).”
Vande Guchte v. Kort, 703 N.W.2d 611 (Neb. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 4× “(c) Unlawful Tying Arrangement Vande Guchte asserts that using Heritage as an exclusive builder was a prohibited tying arrangement under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 59-801 et seq. (Reissue 2004) — “Unlawful Restraint of Trade.”
Allied Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Foremost Ins., 418 F. Supp. 157 (D. Neb. 1976). · cites it 6× “§ 44-1525(4) (Reissue 1974) and Neb.Rev.Stat. § 59-801 et seq. (Reissue 1974) by the above acts and by precluding Allied from selling insurance except on unfavorable terms.”
Dunning v. Tallman, 504 N.W.2d 85 (Neb. 1993). · cites it 2× “DUNNING’S PUBLIC POLICY DEFENSE According to Dunning, the district court erred by disallowing her “public policy defense” based on Neb. Rev. Stat. § 59-801 (Reissue 1988): “Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy in restraint of trade or…”
Mike Pratt & Sons, Inc. v. Metalcraft, Inc., 383 N.W.2d 758 (Neb. 1986). · cites it 2× “Pratt’s suit sought to recover money damages from the various appellees for allegedly conspiring to tortiously interfere with a business or contract right and for further violating the provisions of the Nebraska antitrust statutes, Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 59-801 et seq. (Reissue…”
Remick Music Corp. v. Interstate Hotel Co. of Nebraska, 58 F. Supp. 523 (D. Neb. 1944). “Noted without decision is a contention on the part of certain of the plaintiffs that the entire legislative measure which is Chapter 59, Article 12, is unconstitutional because, though amendatory of Sections 59-801 to 59-822, inclusive, C.S.”
Stanford Motor Co. v. Westman, 39 N.W.2d 841 (Neb. 1949). “Westman Signature of Purchaser” Appellant contends this agreement is void and unenforceable for the reason that it is an unlawful restraint of trade; is in violation of the laws of Nebraska, particularly sections 59-801, 59-802, and 59-805, R. S.”
Ploog v. Roberts Dairy Co., 240 N.W. 764 (Neb. 1932). “This is an action at law, brought by the appellant to recover damages in the sum of $15,000 from the appellees, on account of alleged violations of the Nebraska antitrust law, as set out in sections 59-801 and 59-802, Comp. St. 1929, covering the subject of unfair local…”
Show all 18 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.