Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.730 (2026)

Monopolies prohibited

✓ current as of May 2026

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

646.730 Monopolies prohibited. Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of trade or commerce, shall be in violation of ORS 136.617, 646.705 to 646.805 and 646.990. [1975 c.255 §5]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1994–2026 · leading case: Willamette Dental Grp., P.C. v. Oregon Dental Serv. Corp., 882 P.2d 637 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Willamette Dental Grp., P.C. v. Oregon Dental Serv. Corp., 882 P.2d 637 (Or. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 4× “Plaintiffs then sued ODA and ODS, asserting that the allegedly anticompetitive invocation of the most favored nations clause rendered ODA and ODS hable for monopolization and attempted monopolization, ORS 646.730, ORS 646.780, tortious interference with contractual and…”

Volm v. Legacy Health Sys., Inc., 237 F. Supp. 2d 1166 (D. Or. 2002). “715(2) (“decisions of federal courts in construction of federal law relating to the same subject shall be persuasive authority”), and summary judgment is granted against the state claim.”

Oregon Laborers-Employers Health & Welfare Trust Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc., 188 F.R.D. 365 (D. Or. 1998). “725 (Complaint, HH 282-294); (3) conspiracy to monopolize in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 USC § 2 (Complaint, 1111271-281) and ORS 646.730 (Complaint, 1111295-304); (4) unlawful trade practices in violation of ORS 646.”

DAT Solutions, LLC v. Convoy, Inc. (D. Or. 2023). · cites it 8× “725; (5) monopolization in violation of ORS 646.730; and (6) attempted monopolization in violation of ORS 646.”

Ecoshield Pest Solutions Portland, LLC v. Grit Mktg., LLC; Zachary Seager; & Corbin Hansen (D. Or. 2026). · cites it 2× “090; (5) state antitrust violations under ORS 646.730 and ORS 646.780; and (6) federal antitrust violations under 15 U.”

EcoShield Pest Solutions Portland, LLC v. Grit Mktg., LLC (D. Or. 2025). “As to Exhibits 1–3, 5–9, and 11, the Defendants ask the Court to take judicial notice of the materials from Defendant Grit’s and Plaintiff’s websites, the Arizona Corporation Commission’s 1 The statutory claims are price discrimination under ORS 646.”

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.