New Jersey Statutes
N.J. Stat. § 56:9-3 (2026)
Contracts and combinations in restraint of trade
✓ current as of May 2026
Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce, in this State, shall be unlawful.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 32
cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1976–2025 · leading case: Acme Markets, Inc. v. Wharton Hardware & Supply Corp., 890 F. Supp. 1230 (D.N.J. 1995).
Acme Markets, Inc. v. Wharton Hardware & Supply Corp., 890 F. Supp. 1230 (D.N.J. 1995). “Finally, Wharton and Giant seek, in counts three and six respectively, a declaration that the restrictive covenant is invalid and unenforceable because it violates the New Jersey Antitrust Act, N.J.S.A. §§ 56:9-3 & 56:9-4. *1236 II. DISCUSSION A.”
Liggett Grp. Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 102 F. Supp. 2d 518 (D.N.J. 2000). “NJ.Stat.Ann. § 56:9-3. Note 2 to the New Jersey Antitrust Act provides in relevant part: According to [the] per se method of evaluation of whether restraint of trade is unreasonable, there are certain agreements or practices which because of their pernicious effect on…”
Cosmetic Gallery, Inc. v. Schoeneman Corp., 495 F.3d 46 (3rd Cir. 2007). “Cosmetic Gallery filed this suit in New Jersey Superior Court, alleging violations of the New Jersey Antitrust Act, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 56:9-3 , statutory and common law unfair competition, N.”
In Re Terazosin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litig., 160 F. Supp. 2d 1365 (S.D. Fla. 2001). “54 (same); N.J. Stat. Ann. § 56:9-3 (same); N.M. Stat.”
Michael Halebian N.J., Inc. v. Roppe Rubber Corp., 718 F. Supp. 348 (D.N.J. 1989). “And, finally, as the claim of unlawful monopolization involves an analysis of intent, an issue about which there is a factual dispute, summary judgment, plaintiff claims, must be denied.”
Weisfeld v. Sun Chem. Corp., 210 F.R.D. 136 (D.N.J. 2002). “§ 1 , and New Jersey’s antitrust statute, N.J.S.A. 56:9-3, et seq., to restrain the labor market for technical employees in the printing ink industry.”
CSr Ltd. v. Cigna Corp., 405 F. Supp. 2d 526 (D.N.J. 2005). “CSR’s Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) alleges federal antitrust claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act (Count III) and New Jersey state antitrust claims under N.J.S.A. § 56:9-3 (Count IV). The instant motions do not broadly implicate the substantive merits of CSR’s group…”
Regency Oldsmobile, Inc. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 723 F. Supp. 250 (D.N.J. 1989). “The substantive provisions of that Act, 15 N.J.S.A. §§ 56:9-3 and 56:9-4, mirror, respectively, §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.”
Ideal Dairy Farms, Inc. v. Farmland Dairy Farms, Inc., 659 A.2d 904 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1995). “2d 722 (1985), plaintiff brought suit under the New Jersey Antitrust Act (N.J.S.A. 56:9-3 and 4), alleging that defendants acquired their business premises for the sole purpose of shutting down plaintiffs store, replacing it with their own food store, and thereby eliminating…”
E Z Sockets, Inc. v. Brighton-Best Socket Screw Mfg. Inc., 704 A.2d 1364 (N.J. Ct. of Ch. 1996). “Thereafter, Brighton and Lakshmi reached an agreement whereby Lakshmi agreed to terminate sales to E Z. As a result, in June 1995, Lakshmi terminated its business with E Z, and consequently E Z initiated this lawsuit.”
In re Christ Hosp., 502 B.R. 158 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2013). “, Hudson’s supposed modus operandi) and complaining that Hudson had also damaged it as to Christ Hospital independent of the later anticom-petitive events, Prime asserted: First Count (Violation of the New Jersey Anti-Trust Act, N.J.S.A. 56:9-3— Conspiracy); Second Count…”
CSR Ltd. v. Fed. Ins., 40 F. Supp. 2d 559 (D.N.J. 1998). “” N.J.Stat.Ann. § 56:9-3 (West 1998). New Jersey “antitrust provisions are patterned after the Sherman Act, and [New Jersey courts have] previously acknowledged the significance of federal antitrust decisions in the interpretation of [New Jersey] antitrust law.”
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.