Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 1331.08 (2026)

Liability for damages

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Effective:

February 20, 2002

Latest Legislation:

House Bill 126 - 124th General Assembly

PDF:

Download Authenticated PDF

In addition to the civil and criminal penalties provided in sections 1331.01 to 1331.14 of the Revised Code, the person injured in the person's business or property by another person by reason of anything forbidden or declared to be unlawful in those sections, may sue therefor in any court having jurisdiction and venue thereof, without respect to the amount in controversy, and recover treble the damages sustained by the person and the person's costs of suit. When it appears to the court, before which a proceeding under those sections is pending, that the ends of justice require other parties to be brought before the court, the court may cause them to be made parties defendant and summoned, whether or not they reside in the county where the action is pending.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1960–2023 · leading case: Johnson v. Microsoft Corp., 106 Ohio St. 3d 278 (Ohio 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Johnson v. Microsoft Corp., 106 Ohio St. 3d 278 (Ohio 2005). · cites it 10× “Indirect Purchaser {¶ 8} Regarding the issue of whether the Valentine Act allows indirect purchasers to maintain antitrust claims in Ohio, we recognize that the Ohio General Assembly patterned Ohio’s antitrust provisions in accordance with federal antitrust provisions.”

Johnson v. Microsoft Corp., 802 N.E.2d 712 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 3× “” R.C. 1331.08. Although at first blush this language may seem broad enough to infer an intent by the legislature to part company with Illinois Brick and allow for suits by indirect purchasers, it is essentially the same language that appears in the Clayton Act, and has…”

Schweizer v. Riverside Methodist Hospitals, 671 N.E.2d 312 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996). “In other words, the unfair competitive advantage is his denial of staff privileges to practice those technologies at Riverside Methodist Hospitals. The question then becomes: Is this an antitrust injury recognizable by the Valentine Act? It is not.”

Iron Workers Local Union No. 17 Ins. Fund v. Philip Morris Inc., 29 F. Supp. 2d 801 (N.D. Ohio 1998). · cites it 2× “§ 15 ; Ohio Rev. Code § 1331.08. Here, plaintiffs’ state claim of civil conspiracy is based on their RICO and antitrust claims.”

Emanuel's, L.L.C. v. Restore Marietta, Inc., 2023 Ohio 147 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). “And R.C. 1331.08 authorizes “the person injured in the person’s business or property by another person by reason of anything forbidden or declared to be unlawful in [R.”

Pac. Great Lakes Corp. v. Bessemer & Lake Erie R.R., 720 N.E.2d 551 (Ohio Ct. App. 1998). “Code; R.C. 1331.08. 7 Isolating such harm caused by antitrust violations is complicated in cases involving existing businesses in the particular field, but is even more difficult in cases involving potential businesses that allege the loss of a business opportunity, by…”

Englander Motors, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 186 F. Supp. 82 (N.D. Ohio 1960). · cites it 4× “354 , indicates that one Ohio statute, ORC § 1331.08, closely parallels the treble damage section of the Clayton Act in language and apparent purpose.”

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.