N.C. Gen. Stat. » Chapter 75
NC General Statutes

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1 (2026)

Combinations in restraint of trade illegal

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NCLEGncleg.gov (official) JustiaChapter 75 CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce in the State of North Carolina is hereby declared to be illegal. Every person or corporation who shall make any such contract expressly or shall knowingly be a party thereto by implication, or who shall engage in any such combination or conspiracy shall be guilty of a Class H felony. (1913, c. 41, s. 1; C.S., s. 2559; 1981, c. 764, s. 2.)

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 197 cases (40 in the last 5 years), 1956–2026 · leading case: McClean v. Duke Univ., 376 F. Supp. 3d 585 (M.D.N.C. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
McClean v. Duke Univ., 376 F. Supp. 3d 585 (M.D.N.C. 2019). · cites it 22× “11 Duke's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's *608 breach of contract claim will be granted.”
Olivetti Corp. v. Ames Bus. Sys., Inc., 356 S.E.2d 578 (N.C. 1987). · cites it 12× “The trial court found that Olivetti had defrauded Ames and had committed unfair and deceptive trade practices in violation of N.C.G.S. § 75-1. It calculated Ames' damages for lost future profits to be $401,000 and for lost past profits to be $5,200 and trebled those amounts…”
Cole v. Champion Enter., Inc., 496 F. Supp. 2d 613 (M.D.N.C. 2007). · cites it 16× “the complete vesting of his benefits, following the termination of his employment without cause; (4) that the covenants not to compete from the 2001 stock option agreements are invalid and unenforceable; (5) that Champion and SSH’s attempts to enforce the covenants not to…”
Cameron v. New Hanover Mem'l Hosp., Inc., 293 S.E.2d 901 (N.C. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 7× “Thus, we now consider plaintiffs’ claims that defendants engaged in a restraint of trade and in unfair methods of competition and practice in violation of G.S. 75-1 & 75-1.1. *442 At the time of the trial of the present case, 11 G.”
United Roasters, Inc. v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 485 F. Supp. 1041 (E.D.N.C. 1979). · cites it 12× “) Count 5 alleged a restraint of trade in violation of N.C.G.S. §§ 75-1 and 2. The court has studied 1,626 pages of depositions, 74 pages of answers to interrogatories, 29 pages of briefs and hundreds of pages of exhibits filed in support of and in opposition to the motion for…”
Mkt. Am., Inc. v. Christman-Orth, 520 S.E.2d 570 (N.C. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 8× “Defendant contends that the non-competition clause contained in the Agreement violates section 75-1 of the General Statutes.”
R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Philip Morris Inc., 199 F. Supp. 2d 362 (M.D.N.C. 2002). · cites it 5× “§§ 1 and 2 (federal claims), and North Carolina General Statutes §§ 75-1, 75-1.”
Poor v. Hill, 530 S.E.2d 838 (N.C. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 3× “Plaintiffs thereafter filed the instant suit 18 July 1995 alleging (1) breach of contract and (2) unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of N.C.G.S. § 75-1 — 75-35 (1999) (Chapter 75).”
Whitaker v. Mortg. Miracles, Inc. (In Re Summit Place, LLC), 298 B.R. 62 (Bankr. W.D.N.C. 2002). · cites it 6× “Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices, N.C. Gen.Stat. § 75-1 et seq. 36. N.C. Gen.”
Good Hope Hosp., Inc. v. North Carolina Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 620 S.E.2d 873 (N.C. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “1983; (4) that Betsy Johnson’s opposition to plaintiffs’ proposed projects constituted tortious interference with contract, tor-tious interference with prospective economic advantage, a conspiracy in restraint of trade in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1 , and unfair and…”
Stetser v. Tap Pharm. Prods., Inc., 598 S.E.2d 570 (N.C. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 3× “Whether the defendants’ fraudulent scheme as alleged constitutes a violation of the North Carolina Consumer Fraud Act, N.C.G.S. §§ 75-1, et seq.; h. Whether the defendants violated the North Carolina common law of fraud; i.”
Knutton v. Cofield, 160 S.E.2d 29 (N.C. 1968). · cites it 6× “He must therefore stand or fall upon his contentions that (1) the contract is void as against public policy because it is in restraint of trade and prohibited by G.S. §§ 75-1, 75-2 and 75-5; or (2) that the "liquidated damages" clause of the contract is in fact a penalty and not…”
Show all 197 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.