Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 79, § 201 (2026)

Short title

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Sections 1 through 12 of this act may be cited as the "Oklahoma Antitrust Reform Act". Added by Laws 1998, c. 356, § 1, eff. July 1, 1998.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2002–2022 · leading case: Fine Airport Parking, Inc. v. City of Tulsa, 2003 OK 27 (Okla. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Fine Airport Parking, Inc. v. City of Tulsa, 2003 OK 27 (Okla. 2003). · cites it 4× “The appeal presents two underlying questions: 1) Is the federal doctrine of state action immunity incorporated into the Oklahoma Antitrust Reform Act, 79 O.S.2001, §§ 201, et seq. and 2) Is Tulsa’s operation of an airport parking facility as authorized by the Municipal Airports…”

Major v. Microsoft Corp., 2002 OK CIV APP 120 (Okla. Civ. App. 2002). “In his First Claim for Relief in the First Amended Petition, Major claims Microsoft has violated Oklahoma’s Antitrust Reform Act, 79 O.S. §§ 201, et seq. by monopolizing trade and commerce relating to operating systems for Intel-based personal computers within the State of…”

Joseph T. Ryerson & Son, Inc. v. Travelers Indem. Co. of Am., 2020 IL App (1st) 182491 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021). “(2000)), a count for violation of the Oklahoma Antitrust Reform Act ( Okla. Stat. tit. 79, § 201 et seq. (2002)), and a count for the common law tort of interference with business or contractual relations.”

Joseph T. Ryerson & Son, Inc. v. Travelers Indem. Co. of Am., 2020 IL App (1st) 182491 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021). “-2- violation of the Oklahoma Antitrust Reform Act ( Okla. Stat. tit. 79, § 201 et seq. (2002)), and a count for the common law tort of interference with business or contractual relations.”

Seay v. Oklahoma Bd. of Dentistry (10th Cir. 2022). · cites it 2× “§§ 1-26 and the Oklahoma Antitrust Reform Act, 79 O.S. § 201, et seq. * * * * 2. [The Plaintiffs’] Complaint and Amended Complaint include violations of due process, equal protection and antitrust claims.”

Seay v. Oklahoma Bd. of Dentistry (10th Cir. 2022). · cites it 2× “§§ 1–26 and the Oklahoma Antitrust Reform Act, 79 O.S. § 201, et seq. * * * * 2. [The Plaintiffs’] Complaint and Amended Complaint include violations of due process, equal protection and antitrust claims.”

Joseph T. Ryerson & Son, Inc. v. Travelers Indem. Co. of Am., 2020 IL App (1st) 182491-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2020). “(2000)), a count for violation of the Oklahoma Antitrust Reform Act ( Okla. Stat. tit. 79, § 201 et seq. (2002)), and a count for the common law tort of interference with business or contractual relations.”

Rural Water, Sewer & Solid Waste Mgmt. Dist. No. 1 v. City of Guthrie, 2014 OK CIV APP 48 (Okla. Civ. App. 2013). “21 and alleged Guthrie wrongfully denied Logan-1 access to an essential facility in violation of the Oklahoma Antitrust Reform Act, 79 O.S. 2011 §201 et seq . Both theories of recovery sought the compelled sale of water by Guthrie to Logan-1.”

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.