Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.725

Prohibited acts

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      646.725 Prohibited acts. Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce is declared to be illegal. [1975 c.255 §4]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1978–2023 · leading case: Northwest Medical Laboratories, Inc. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Oregon, Inc.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Northwest Medical Laboratories, Inc. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Oregon, Inc. (1990) or · cites it 12× “Plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals from the trial court’s denial of their request for an injunction and other equitable relief under Oregon’s “Little Sherman Act,” ORS 646.725. 1 Plaintiffs alleged that defendants conspired to refuse to deal with them, thereby denying…”
King City Realty, Inc. v. Sunpace Corp. (1981) or · cites it 4× “Defendant’s answer alleged as an affirmative defense that the list-back agreement was a “tying agreement” and, as such, was an illegal contract in restraint of trade and commerce under ORS 646.725. Before the beginning of the trial on February 27, 1980, plaintiff filed a motion…”
Golden West Insulation, Inc. v. Stardust Investment Corp. (1980) orctapp · cites it 3× “The Anti-Trust Defense Stardust asserts that its contractual arrangement with plaintiff constituted an illegal tying arrangement in violation of Oregon Antitrust law, ORS 646.725, 3 and § 1 of the Sherman Act ( 15 USC § 1 *498 et seq.”
Kovac v. Crooked River Ranch Club & Maintenance Ass'n (2003) orctapp · cites it 2× “That claim rested on plaintiffs three-part theory alleging, first, that the evidence raises a question of fact regarding whether defendant and the county had an agreement under which the county delegated land use decisions on the Ranch to defendant; second, that such an…”
Willamette Dental Group, P.C. v. Oregon Dental Service Corp. (1994) orctapp “780, tortious interference with contractual and prospective business relations, and restraint of trade, ORS 646.725, *492 ORS 646.780. 8 On defendants’ motions for summary judgment the trial court concluded that plaintiffs’ monopolization and attempted monopolization claims…”
Hemstreet v. Warlick (1978) or · cites it 2× “) We hold that the noncompetition covenant cannot be enforced against defendant to prevent his ownership and activities in the Wilsonville motel.”
Weathers v. M. C. Lininger & Sons, Inc. (1984) orctapp “” Plaintiffs, owners of the land which is the subject of the agreement, sought a declaration that: (1) a price-fixing provision is a restraint of trade in violation of ORS 646.725 and is illegal, causing the entire agreement to be void and unenforceable; (2) plaintiffs are…”
Oregon Laborers-Employers Health & Welfare Trust Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc. (1998) ord “715-735 (Complaint, 1111217-233,234-251); (2) restraint of trade in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 USC § 1 (Complaint, HU 252-270) and ORS 646.725 (Complaint, HH 282-294); (3) conspiracy to monopolize in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 USC § 2 (Complaint,…”
Northwest Medical Laboratories, Inc. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Oregon, Inc. (1989) orctapp · cites it 8× “” ORS 646.725. 1 They allege that defendants conspired to refuse to deal with them, thereby denying them access to a market necessary for effective competition.”
Olson v. Wheelock (1984) orctapp · cites it 4× “The complaint alleges that defendants were negligent in allowing plaintiffs underlying claim for violation of Oregon’s Anti-trust Law, ORS 646.725, 1 to be dismissed for want of prosecution.”
Yamaha Store of Bend, Oregon, Inc. v. Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A. (1989) orctapp “Because Blue Cross did not involve the theory of geographic restraint of trade or price discrimination, and because we reviewed de novo, 97 Or App at 76, we did not decide what kind of evidence would be sufficient to submit to a jury to prove competition in the plaintiffs…”
DAT Solutions, LLC v. Convoy, Inc. (2023) ord “730 (Counterclaim Six) Convoy asserts three claims under the Oregon antitrust laws, which mirror exactly the claims asserted under the Sherman Act: illegal contracts in restraint of trade in violation of ORS 646.725, which mirrors Convoy’s claim of illegal contracts in restraint…”
Show all 13 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.