Oklahoma Statutes
Okla. Stat. tit. 79, § 212 (2026)
Interpretation of act consistent with federal law
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
OK-LEGoklegislature.gov
JustiaOkla. Stat.
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
The provisions of this act shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with Federal Antitrust Law 15 U.S.C., Section 1 et seq. and the case law applicable thereto. Added by Laws 1998, c. 356, § 13, eff. July 1, 1998.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1999–2025 · leading case: Star Fuel Marts, LLC v. Sam's East, Inc., 362 F.3d 639 (10th Cir. 2004).
Star Fuel Marts, LLC v. Sam's East, Inc., 362 F.3d 639 (10th Cir. 2004). “Okla. Stat. tit. 79, § 212 . Despite any similarity in language between the OUSA and federal law, neither the Oklahoma legislature nor the Oklahoma courts have ever suggested superimposing the Robinson-Patman Act’s rationale to cases involving below-cost sales.”
In Re New Motor Vehs. Canadian Exp. Antitrust Litig., 350 F. Supp. 2d 160 (D. Me. 2004). “, and the case law applicable thereto,” Okla. Stat. tit. 79, § 212 . See Major, 60 P.”
Telecor Commc'ns, Inc. v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 305 F.3d 1124 (10th Cir. 2002). “” Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 79, § 212 ; see also Teleco, Inc.”
Bristow Endeavor Healthcare, LLC v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield Ass'n, 691 F. App'x 515 (10th Cir. 2017). “”); see also Okla. Stat. tit. 79, § 212 ("The provisions of this act shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with Federal Antitrust Law 15 U.”
Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 62 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 1999). “See Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 79 § 212. As discussed above, when no state statutory or case law expressly authorizes such relief, federal antitrust .”
Fine Airport Parking, Inc. v. City of Tulsa, 2003 OK 27 (Okla. 2003). “Title 79 O.S.2001, § 212 provides: “The provisions of this act shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with Federal Antitrust Law 15 U.”
Pittsburg Cnty. Rural Water Dist. No. 7 v. City of McAlester, 346 F.3d 1260 (10th Cir. 2003). “We decline to address the state action immunity rulings because, as discussed below, Pitt-7’s essential facilities claims fail on the merits.”
Pittsburg Cnty. Rural Water Dist. No. 7 v. City of McAlester, 358 F.3d 694 (10th Cir. 2004). “We decline to address the state action immunity rulings because, as discussed below, Pitt-7’s essential facilities claims fail on the merits.”
Emrich Aerial Spraying LLC v. The City of Pawhuska, Pawhuska Mun. Airport Auth., & Pawhuska Mun. Airport Advisory Comm. (N.D. Okla. 2025). “” Okla. Stat. tit. 79, § 203 (B). Provisions of the Oklahoma Antitrust Reform Act are interpreted in a manner consistent with federal antitrust law.”
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.