N.M. Stat. » Chapter 57 — Trade Practices and Regulations

N.M. Stat. § 57-1-15

Construction

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Unless otherwise provided in the Antitrust Act, the Antitrust Act shall be construed in harmony with judicial interpretations of the federal antitrust laws. This construction shall be made to achieve uniform application of the state and federal laws prohibiting restraints of trade and monopolistic practices.

History: 1978 Comp., § 57-1-15, enacted by Laws 1979, ch. 374, § 16.

ANNOTATIONS

Compliance with federal substantive law as it relates to oligopolies. — To ensure uniform application of federal and state laws in antitrust actions under the Antitrust Act, 57-1-1 to 57-1-15 NMSA 1978, involving oligopolies, such as the tobacco industry, which are by nature interdependent such that it is likely that when one company acts in a certain manner, the other firms will determine whether it is in their best interest to follow the leader’s action, plaintiffs must meet the standard of federal substantive law, which requires that to show that there was an unlawful agreement, plaintiffs must present evidence that tends to exclude the possibility that defendants acted independently or plaintiffs cannot meet their burden of establishing a genuine issue of material fact to withstand summary judgment for defendants. Romero v. Philip Morris, Inc., 2010-NMSC-035, 148 N.M. 713, 242 P.3d 280, rev'g, 2009-NMCA-022, 145 N.M. 658, 203 P.3d 873.

New Mexico looks to federal decisions to determine meaning of "restraint of trade". State v. Ray Bell Oil Co., 1983-NMCA-068, 101 N.M. 368, 683 P.2d 50, cert. denied, 101 N.M. 362, 683 P.2d 44, appeal dismissed, 469 U.S. 1030, 105 S. Ct. 498, 83 L. Ed. 2d 391 (1984).

Determining allegations of antitrust arrangements. — In the absence of New Mexico decisions directly on point, New Mexico courts look to federal cases involving allegations of antitrust arrangements under § 1 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. § 1). Smith Mach. Corp. v. Hesston, Inc., 1985-NMSC-004, 102 N.M. 245, 694 P.2d 501. Law reviews. — For article, "New Mexico Antitrust Law," see 9 N.M.L. Rev. 339 (1979).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1983–2025 · leading case: Romero v. Philip Morris Inc.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Romero v. Philip Morris Inc. (2010) nm · cites it 9× “§ 1 (2006), evidence of parallel price increases alone is not sufficient in the context of an oligopoly to prove an agreement to fix prices. Such evidence is always ambiguous, and therefore plaintiffs who allege a price-fixing agreement must also provide evidence that tends to…”
New Mexico Oncology & Hematology Consultants, Ltd. v. Presbyterian Healthcare Services (2014) nmd · cites it 6× “In evaluating Plaintiff's New Mexico Antitrust Act claims, the Court generally follows authority interpreting claims under Section 2 of the Sherman Act.”
Coll v. First American Title Insurance (2011) ca10 “This construction shall be *895 made to achieve uniform application of the state and federal laws prohibiting restraints of trade and monopolistic practices,” N.M. Stat. § 57-1-15. See Romero v. Philip Morris Inc.”
In Re Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Antitrust Litigation (2007) cand “050 (“The provisions of this chapter shall be construed in harmony with prevailing judicial interpretations of the federal antitrust statutes”); N.M. Stat. Ann. § 57-1-15 (“the Antitrust Act shall be construed in harmony with judicial interpretations of the federal antitrust…”
Smith MacHinery Corp. v. Hesston, Inc. (1985) nm · cites it 2× “” NMSA 1978, § 57-1-15 (Cum.Supp.1983). In the absence of New Mexico decisions directly on point, we look to federal cases involving allegations of antitrust arrangements under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.”
In re Dealer Management Systems Antitrust Litigation (2019) illinoised “" N.M. Stat. Ann. § 57-1-15 . Illinois Brick Repealer Statute : "[A]ny person threatened with injury or injured in his business or property, directly or indirectly, by a violation of Section 57-1-1 or 57-1-2 NMSA 1978 may bring an action for appropriate injunctive relief, up to…”
In Re Flash Memory Antitrust Litigation (2009) cand “050 (“The provisions of this chapter [under Nevada law] shall be construed in harmony with prevailing judicial interpretations of the federal antitrust statutes”); N.M. Stat. Ann. § 57-1-15 (“the [New Mexico] Antitrust Act shall be construed in harmony with judicial…”
Romero v. Philip Morris, Inc. (2008) nmctapp · cites it 2× “” NMSA 1978, § 57-1-15 (1979). Accordingly, we draw upon federal case law interpreting Section 1 of the Sherman Act for substantive rules defining the scope of liability under NMAA Section 1.”
State v. Ray Bell Oil Co. (1983) nmctapp · cites it 9× “NMSA 1978, § 57-1-15 (Cum.Supp.1982), also enacted in 1979, reads: Unless otherwise provided in the Antitrust Act [57-1-1 to 57-1-15 NMSA 1978], the Antitrust Act shall be construed in harmony with judicial interpretations of the federal antitrust laws.”
Leyba v. Renger (1994) nmd · cites it 2× “Partial summary judgment on Plaintiffs tying arrangement, monopolization, and group boycott claims is hereby entered in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff.”
Singh v. Memorial Medical Center, Inc. (2008) nmd · cites it 2× “Plaintiffs also bring a claim under the New Mexico Antitrust Act, N.M. Stat. Ann. § 57-1-1 . This law is patterned after Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, and mandates a construction "in harmony with judicial interpretations of the federal antitrust laws.”
Time Insurance v. Astrazeneca AB (2014) paed “§ 356:14 (2010) (same); N.M. Stat. Ann. § 57-1-15 (same); Or.Rev.”
Show all 15 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.