U.S. Code » Title 15 » Chapter CHAPTER 1— MONOPOLIES AND COMBINATIONS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE

15 U.S.C. § 34

Definitions applicable to sections 34 to 36

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 15 CasesGoogle Scholar
For purposes of sections 34 to 36 of this title—(1) the term “local government” means—(A) a city, county, parish, town, township, village, or any other general function governmental unit established by State law, or(B) a school district, sanitary district, or any other special function governmental unit established by State law in one or more States,(2) the term “person” has the meaning given it in subsection (a) of the first section of the Clayton Act [15 U.S.C. 12(a)], but does not include any local government as defined in paragraph (1) of this section, and(3) the term “State” has the meaning given it in section 4G(2) of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 15g(2)).(Pub. L. 98–544, § 2, Oct. 24, 1984, 98 Stat. 2750.)Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Pub. L. 98–544, § 6, Oct. 24, 1984, 98 Stat. 2751, provided that: “This Act [enacting this section, sections 35 and 36 of this title, and provisions set out as a note under section 1 of this title] shall take effect thirty days before the date of the enactment of this Act [Oct. 24, 1984].”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 44 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1985–2025 · leading case: Tremont Pub. Advisors, LLC v. Connecticut Resources Recovery Auth., 333 Conn. 672 (Conn. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Tremont Pub. Advisors, LLC v. Connecticut Resources Recovery Auth., 333 Conn. 672 (Conn. 2019). · cites it 2× “fter, the trial court, sua sponte, ordered the parties to file supple- mental briefs addressing the following issues: (1) ‘‘Whether the court should construe [the defendant] as the equivalent of the state of Connecticut, and, there- fore, entitled to sovereign immunity requiring…”
Doron Precision Sys., Inc. v. FAAC, INC., 423 F. Supp. 2d 173 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). “As a public benefit corporation of the state of New York, operating for the special purpose of maintaining a commuter transportation system within the geographic area of New York City, NYCTA is a "special purpose governmental unit,” and is therefore protected by the LGAA.”
Daniel v. Am. Bd. of Emergency Med., 988 F. Supp. 127 (W.D.N.Y. 1997). · cites it 2× “a school district, sanitary district, or any other special function governmental unit established by State law in one or more States____” 15 U.S.C. § 34 (1). The special'function governmental unit provision is “designed to protect those political subdivisions of the state, which…”
Raymond Benitez v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hosp., 992 F.3d 229 (4th Cir. 2021). · cites it 8× “2 QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judge: This appeal involves the Local Government Antitrust Act of 1984, 15 U.S.C. § 34 et seq. Congress passed the Act “in order to broaden the scope of antitrust immunity applicable to local governments” after a surge in the filing of antitrust lawsuits…”
IT & E Overseas, Inc. v. RCA Global Commc'ns, Inc., 747 F. Supp. 6 (D.D.C. 1990). · cites it 4× “Under the LGAA, local governments are defined as a “general function governmental unit” or a “special function governmental unit” established by “State” law, 15 U.S.C. § 34 (1)(A-B), and includes U.S.”
Bloom v. Hennepin Cnty., 783 F. Supp. 418 (D. Minnesota 1992). · cites it 2× “In arguing for summary judgment, the Hennepin County defendants argue that they are immune from federal antitrust liability under the Local Government Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 34 , et seq., and the state action doctrine and that they are immune from state antitrust liability…”
Ne. Jet Ctr., Ltd. v. Lehigh-Northampton Airport Auth., 767 F. Supp. 672 (E.D. Pa. 1991). · cites it 2× “” Defendant Lehigh-Northampton Airport Authority would fit into the definition of “local government” found at 15 U.S.C.A. § 34 (1) (West Supp.1991): For purposes of this section and sections 35 and 36 of this title— (1) the term ‘local government’ means— (A) a city, county,…”
Nicolette v. Caruso, 315 F. Supp. 2d 710 (W.D. Pa. 2003). “] 15 U.S.C. § 34 . Because Findlay Township is a “township” under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and because the complaint alleges that defendants were acting in an official capacity as agents of the township, plaintiff is precluded from seeking damages under the…”
Griffith v. Health Care Auth. of City of Huntsville, 705 F. Supp. 1489 (N.D. Ala. 1989). · cites it 4× “1988), gives the federal bench and bar the following history of the Local Antitrust Act of 1984, 15 U.S. C. § 34, et seq.: Congress enacted the Local Government Antitrust Act of 1984, 15 U.”
Brownsburg Cmty. Sch. Corp. v. Natare Corp., 824 N.E.2d 336 (Ind. 2005). “" 15 U.S.C. § 34 (1)(A)-(B). The House Judiciary Committee pointed out that City of Lafayette and City of Boulder "appear to have limited the extent that antitrust immunity applicable to States will be accorded to local governments" and these decisions "could undermine a local…”
Martin v. Mem'l Hosp. at Gulfport, 130 F.3d 1143 (5th Cir. 1997). “MHG and the board moved for summary judgment claiming: immunity from federal antitrust law under the state action doctrine; immunity from damages for anti-competitive conduct under the Local Government Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 34 , 36; that Dr. Martin was not deprived of a…”
Capital Freight Servs., Inc. v. Trailer Marine Transp. Corp., 704 F. Supp. 1190 (S.D.N.Y. 1989). · cites it 2× “15 U.S.C. § 34 (1). The overwhelming majority of cases that have thus far been decided under the LGAA have involved claims for immunity by counties, towns, cities, or other general function governmental units.”
Show all 44 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.