N.J. Stat. » Title 56 — TRADE NAMES, TRADE-MARKS AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES
New Jersey Statutes

N.J. Stat. § 56:9-18 (2026)

Uniform construction

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaN.J. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

This act shall be construed in harmony with ruling judicial interpretations of comparable Federal antitrust statutes and to effectuate, insofar as practicable, a uniformity in the laws of those states which enact it.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1978–2025 · leading case: Cosmetic Gallery, Inc. v. Schoeneman Corp., 495 F.3d 46 (3rd Cir. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cosmetic Gallery, Inc. v. Schoeneman Corp., 495 F.3d 46 (3rd Cir. 2007). · cites it 2× “3 *51 N.J. Stat. Ann. § 56:9-18 ; 4 Patel v. Soriano, 369 N.”
In Re New Motor Vehs. Canadian Exp. Antitrust Litig., 350 F. Supp. 2d 160 (D. Me. 2004). “” N.J. Stat. Ann. § 56:9-18 . The Antitrust Act does not authorize indirect purchaser suits.”
Acme Markets, Inc. v. Wharton Hardware & Supply Corp., 890 F. Supp. 1230 (D.N.J. 1995). · cites it 2× “See N.J.S.A. § 56:9-18; Regency Oldsmobile, Inc.”
CSr Ltd. v. Cigna Corp., 405 F. Supp. 2d 526 (D.N.J. 2005). · cites it 2× “” N.J.S.A. § 56:9-18. The New Jersey Supreme Court has stated that consonance between the federal and state enactments is required.”
Regency Oldsmobile, Inc. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 723 F. Supp. 250 (D.N.J. 1989). · cites it 2× “15 N.J.S.A. § 56:9-18; see, e.g., Inter-City Tire & Auto Center, Inc.”
Liggett Grp. Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 102 F. Supp. 2d 518 (D.N.J. 2000). “N.J.S.A. 56:9-18. See also Ideal Dairy Farms, Inc.”
CSR Ltd. v. Fed. Ins., 40 F. Supp. 2d 559 (D.N.J. 1998). · cites it 2× “” N.J.StatAnn. § 56:9-18 (West 1998). Thus, based on the above analysis of judicial interpretation of federal antitrust law, plaintiffs have alleged facts sufficient to survive a 12(b)(6) motion with respect to their claim under New Jersey antitrust law.”
Wilson v. Gen. Motors Corp., 921 A.2d 414 (N.J. 2007). “2d 1267 (2005), “[w]e follow federal antitrust law in interpreting our own antitrust statute,” see N.J.S.A 56:9-18, and under Illinois Brick Co.”
Bocobo v. Radiology Consultants, 477 F. App'x 890 (3rd Cir. 2012). “2d 904, 920 (1995) (quoting N.J. Stat. Ann. § 56:9-18 ). Accordingly, our analysis of Bo-cobo’s federal antitrust claims in Count 1 applies to his NJAA claims in Count 2, and we resolve both counts together.”
New Jersey Carpenters Health Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc., 17 F. Supp. 2d 324 (D.N.J. 1998). “2d 1050 (1984)(citing to N.J.S.A. 56:9-18); see also P.. Opp. Br. at 27; Def.”
Urdinaran v. Aarons, 115 F. Supp. 2d 484 (D.N.J. 2000). “N.J.S.A. 56:9-18; see also Kugler v. Koscot Interplanetary, Inc.”
Corrosion Resistant Materials Co. v. Steelite, Inc., 692 F. Supp. 407 (D.N.J. 1988). · cites it 2× “” Moreover, Section 56:9-18 of the Act provides that it “shall be construed in harmony with ruling judicial interpretations of comparable Federal antitrust statutes and to effectuate, insofar as practicable, uniformity in the laws of those states which enact it.”
Show all 29 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.