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

N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 356:2 (2026)

Restraints Prohibited

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NH-GCgc.nh.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
    356:2 Restraints Prohibited. –
I. Every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade is unlawful.
II. Every contract, combination, or conspiracy is unlawful which has the purpose or the effect of:
(a) Fixing, controlling or maintaining prices, rates, quotations or fees in any part of trade or commerce; or
(b) Fixing, controlling, maintaining, limiting or discontinuing the production, manufacture, mining, sale or distribution of any commodity or service; or
(c) Allocating or dividing customers or markets in any part of trade or commerce; or
(d) Refusing to deal, or coercing, persuading or inducing any person to refuse to deal, with another person; or
(e) Fixing or controlling the price quotation of any bid for a public or private contract, submitting sham or complementary bids, or controlling the submission of bids including refusals to bid.

Source. 1917, 177:2. 1919, Ex., 2:1. PL 168:2. RL 202:2. RSA 356:2. 1979, 385:3, eff. Aug. 22, 1979.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1977–2014 · leading case: Kenneth E. Curran, Inc. v. Auclair Transp., Inc., 519 A.2d 280 (N.H. 1986).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kenneth E. Curran, Inc. v. Auclair Transp., Inc., 519 A.2d 280 (N.H. 1986). · cites it 8× “In the second suit, also begun in 1980, against the State and the same two corporate defendants, the plaintiff alleges both a further violation of the statute by the two corporations and an abuse of discretion by the State in considering the bids; the plaintiff seeks to enjoin…”
Donovan v. Digit. Equip. Corp., 883 F. Supp. 775 (D.N.H. 1994). · cites it 4× “Memorandum in Support of Motion at 5. Under this theory, the defendant argues that it is entitled to summary judgment on the state claim for the same reasons it advanced in support of its motion on the federal claim.”
Jay Edwards, Inc. v. Baker, 534 A.2d 706 (N.H. 1987). “RSA 356:2, I, on which the plaintiff’s conspiracy claim is based, provides: “Every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade is unlawful.”
Mountain Springs Water Co. v. Mountain Lakes Vill. Dist., 489 A.2d 647 (N.H. 1985). · cites it 4× “, filed a complaint against the defendants in superior court, alleging intentional interference with contractual relations and unlawful restraint of trade in violation of RSA 356:2. The Superior Court (Johnson, J.”
Guglielmo v. WorldCom, Inc., 808 A.2d 65 (N.H. 2002). “, to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims for violations of the anti-monopoly statute, see RSA 356:2, :3 (1995), and the Consumer Protection Act (CPA), see RSA 358-A:2 (1995).”
Kenneth E. Curran, Inc. v. Auclair Transp., Inc., 431 A.2d 124 (N.H. 1981). “With these and other allegations, the plaintiff claims that Granite State and Auclair violated the terms of RSA 356:2 11(e) (Supp. 1979). Under the provisions of this statute, “[e]very contract, combination, or conspiracy is unlawful which has the purpose or the effect of: .”
Opinion of the Justices, 376 A.2d 118 (N.H. 1977). “See RSA 356:2, which outlaws all trusts which restrict trade or commerce, and RSA ch.”
ELCA of New Hampshire, Inc. v. McIntyre, 523 A.2d 90 (N.H. 1987). “) on October 31, 1985, found that the lease prohibited the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages on the premises, ruling that the prohibition did not constitute an unreasonable restraint of trade such as would invalidate the contract pursuant to RSA 356:2, II. The lessee…”
Heritage Home Hlth v. Cap. Reg. Hlth (D.N.H. 1996). · cites it 14× “Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment The defendants argue that summary judgment is warranted on the claims asserted in count III that are based on RSA § 356:2 2 because the defendants -- a parent company, two of its wholly owned subsidiaries, and two individuals acting in…”
Wheeler v. Mobil (D.N.H. 1994). · cites it 4× “for tortious interference with contract and for violation of N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 356:2 (1984), New Hampshire's version of the Sherman Antitrust Act.”
Johnny Prescott & Son Oil v. Rymes Heating Oils, 2014 DNH 127 (D.N.H. 2014). · cites it 2× “(“RSA”) § 358-A (Count I), illegal restraint of trade under RSA § 356:2 (Count II), illegal monopoly under RSA § 356:3 (Count III), discriminatory pricing under the Clayton Act, 15 U.”
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.