N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. » N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. / Title xxxi / Chapter 356
New Hampshire Revised Statutes

N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 356:14 (2026)

Interpretation of Statute

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NH-GCgc.nh.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
    356:14 Interpretation of Statute. – In any action or prosecution under this chapter, the courts may be guided by interpretations of the United States' antitrust laws.

Source. 1973, 434:2, eff. Aug. 29, 1973.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1986–2025 · leading case: Minuteman, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 795 A.2d 833 (N.H. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Minuteman, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 795 A.2d 833 (N.H. 2002). · cites it 3× “The plaintiffs assert that the use of the phrase “any person” evidences the legislature’s intent to allow indirect purchasers to bring an antitrust claim.”
Donovan v. Digit. Equip. Corp., 883 F. Supp. 775 (D.N.H. 1994). · cites it 6× “RSA § 356:14 (1984); see U.S. Healthcare, Inc.”
In re Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve Coffee Antitrust Litig., 383 F. Supp. 3d 187 (S.D. Ill. 2019). “New Hampshire Like Arizona, New Hampshire also has a permissive harmonization provision, N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 356:14 ("In any action or prosecution under this chapter, the courts may be guided by interpretations of the United States' antitrust laws.”
Curtis Mfg. Co. v. Plasti-Clip Corp., 888 F. Supp. 1212 (D.N.H. 1994). “See RSA 356:14; U.S. Healthcare, supra, 986 F.”
Kenneth E. Curran, Inc. v. Auclair Transp., Inc., 519 A.2d 280 (N.H. 1986). “” RSA 356:14. Relevant federal case law clearly indicates that two corporations related as Auclair and Granite State are cannot combine or conspire in violation of a statute like RSA 356:2,11(e).”
Time Ins. v. Astrazeneca AB, 52 F. Supp. 3d 705 (E.D. Pa. 2014). “050 (same); N.H.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 356:14 (2010) (same); N.”
Oliver v. Am. Express Co., No. 1:19-cv-00566 (E.D.N.Y Feb. 1, 2021). “” 2 See N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 356:14 (“In any action or prosecution under this chapter, the courts may be guided by interpretations of the United States’ antitrust laws.”
Oliver v. Am. Express Co., No. 1:19-cv-00566 (E.D.N.Y Jan. 25, 2021). “1 See N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 356:14 (“In any action or prosecution under this chapter, the courts may be guided by interpretations of the United States’ antitrust laws.”
Quinton Cepiel & a. v. New Hampshire Interscholastic Athletic Ass'n & a., No. 2023-0640 (N.H. June 17, 2025). “RSA 356:14 (2022). To establish antitrust standing, a plaintiff must demonstrate that his or her injury is of the kind that the antitrust laws were intended to prevent.”
Wheeler v. Mobil, No. CV-94-228-B (D.N.H. Nov. 17, 1994). · cites it 2× “N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 356:14 (1984); see Kenneth E.”
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.