R.I. Gen. Laws
Rhode Island General Laws

R.I. Gen. Laws § 6-36-4 (2026)

Restraint of trade or commerce

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section RI-LEGwebserver.rilegislature.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of, or to monopolize, trade or commerce is unlawful.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1984–2024 · leading case: Eigabri v. Lekas, 681 A.2d 271 (R.I. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Eigabri v. Lekas, 681 A.2d 271 (R.I. 1996). · cites it 2× “1 The new counts and causes of action included, inter alia, additional charges of slander, libel, and tortious interference with prospective business relations, and also violations of the Rhode Island Antitrust Act, G.L. 1956 § 6-36-4. In the antitrust counts Dr.”
ERI Max Ent., Inc. v. Streisand, 690 A.2d 1351 (R.I. 1997). · cites it 2× “The plaintiff's antitrust claims are based upon G.L.1956 §§ 6-36-4, 6-36-5, and 6-36-6 of the Rhode Island Antitrust Act, which parallel, respectively, the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.”
UXB Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Rosenfeld Concrete Corp., 599 A.2d 1033 (R.I. 1991). · cites it 4× “1956 (1985 Reenactment) §§ 6-36-4 and 6-36-5. Following an extended period of discovery, the trial justice granted Rosenfeld’s motion for summary judgment because the evidence presented by UXB was insufficient to prove its claims of restraint of trade and attempted…”
UXB Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Rosenfeld Concrete Corp., 641 A.2d 75 (R.I. 1994). “1956 (1992 Reenactment) §§ 6-36-4 and 6-36-5. The trial justice granted summary judgment in favor of defendants on the antitrust counts.”
Stop & Shop Supermarket Co. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island, 239 F. Supp. 2d 180 (D.R.I. 2003). · cites it 2× “§ 14 ; and sections 4 and 6 of the Rhode Island Antitrust Act, R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 6-36-4, -6. The plaintiffs claim that the defendants have restrained trade and limited competition in the Rhode Island market for the sale of prescription pharmaceuticals covered by health insurance…”
Greater Providence MRI Ltd. P'ship v. Med. Imaging Network of S. New England, Inc., 32 F. Supp. 2d 491 (D.R.I. 1998). · cites it 2× “Laws § 6-36-6; Count IV for restraint of trade under Section 4 of the Rhode Island Antitrust Act, R.I.Gen.Laws § 6-36-4; and Count V for exclusive dealing under Section 6 of the Rhode Island Antitrust Act.”
DM Rsch., Inc. v. Coll. of Am. Pathologists, 2 F. Supp. 2d 226 (D.R.I. 1998). · cites it 2× “§ 1 ; (2) conspiracy to restrain trade in violation of the Rhode Island Antitrust Act, R.I. Gen. Laws § 6-36-4; (3) tortious interference with existing and prospective business relationships and (4) defamation.”
State v. Calise, 478 A.2d 198 (R.I. 1984). “The four defendants were charged with conspiracy to “allocate contracts for home improvements” in connection with contracts for home repairs issued by the May- or’s Office of Community Development program and “to submit collusive non-competitive, and rigged bids” in connection…”
Delta Dental of Rhode Island v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island, 942 F. Supp. 740 (D.R.I. 1996). “, as well as §§ 6-36-4 and 6-36-5 of the Rhode Island Antitrust Act, supra.”
Pfarr v. Island Servs. Co., 124 F.R.D. 24 (D.R.I. 1989). · cites it 2× “Section 6-36-4 and Section 6-36-5. Plaintiffs are represented in the instant action by the law firm Partridge, Snow & Hahn (PS & H).”
Donatelli v. Nat'l Hockey League, 708 F. Supp. 31 (D.R.I. 1989). “Count IV is a state antitrust claim against the NHL and Edmonton alleging that they, in combination with each other and other NHL clubs, have engaged in an illegal group boycott or concerted refusal to deal in violation of Rhode Island General Laws § 6-36-4. Finally, Count V is…”
Rhode Island v. Cardillo, 592 F. Supp. 655 (D.R.I. 1984). · cites it 2× “2 These defendants (Germani, Calise, Cardillo, and Desautel) were all convicted in the state superior court on various counts alleging criminal violations of Rhode Island’s antitrust statute, R.I.Gen.Laws §§ 6-36-4 and 6-36-16. On appeal, however, the state supreme court…”
Show all 14 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.