Va. Code » Title 59.1. Trade and Commerce » Chapter 1.1. Virginia Antitrust Act
Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 59.1-9.17 (2026)

Construction of chapter

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

This chapter shall be applied and construed to effectuate its general purposes in harmony with judicial interpretation of comparable federal statutory provisions.

1974, c. 545.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases, 1980–2017 · leading case: In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig., 599 F. Supp. 2d 1179 (N.D. Cal. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig., 599 F. Supp. 2d 1179 (N.D. Cal. 2009). · cites it 3× “Virginia With regard to Virginia, plaintiffs respond that the state harmonization provision, Va.Code Ann. § 59.1-9.17, was enacted prior to Illinois Bñck, at a time when indirect purchasers had standing under federal law.”
In re Packaged Seafood Prods. Antitrust Litig., 277 F. Supp. 3d 1167 (S.D. Cal. 2017). · cites it 2× “2007) and Va. Code Ann. § 59.1-9.17 for the proposition that Virginia antitrust law does not provide for indirect purchaser standing.”
Levine v. McLeskey, 881 F. Supp. 1030 (E.D. Va. 1995). · cites it 2× “” VaCode Ann. § 59.1-9.17. Therefore, for the purposes of defendant McLeskey’s summary judgment motions, the Court will use federal case law to examine plaintiffs’ antitrust claims.”
Net Realty Holding Trust v. Franconia Props., Inc., 544 F. Supp. 759 (E.D. Va. 1982). · cites it 3× “” Va.Code § 59.1-9.17 (1982). The court, therefore, holds that the Virginia version of section 1 follows its federal counterpart in requiring application of the rule of reason in this case.”
Stephen Jay Photography, Ltd. v. Olan Mills, Inc., 713 F. Supp. 937 (E.D. Va. 1989). · cites it 3× “Because the pertinent Virginia Antitrust Act provisions use language virtually identical to their federal counterparts, the state act must “be applied and construed to effectuate its general purposes in harmony with judicial interpretations of comparable federal statutory…”
Oksanen v. Page Mem'l Hosp., 945 F.2d 696 (4th Cir. 1991). “Va. Code Ann. § 59.1-9.17 . Because Oksanen has failed to establish his restraint of trade and monopoly claims under federal law, his state law antitrust claims likewise fail.”
Commonwealth Life Ins. v. Clinch Valley Cmty. Hosp., 19 Va. Cir. 514 (Tazewell Cir. Ct. 1982). · cites it 2× “Code § 59.1-9.17. The Virginia statute provides, in part: (a) It is unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, either directly or indirectly, to discriminate in price between different purchasers of commodities or services of like grade and quality, where either or any of the…”
Integrity Auto Specialists, Inc. v. Meyer, 83 Va. Cir. 119 (Chesapeake Cir. Ct. 2011). · cites it 4× “5 invalidates all restrictive covenants, not to mention a substantial body of private contract law. As plaintiff ably notes, the Virginia Antitrust Act is to be “applied and construed to effectuate its general purpose in harmony with judicial interpretation of comparable federal…”
Kuhn v. West Alexandria Props., Inc., 22 Va. Cir. 439 (Alexandria Cir. Ct. 1980). “Under § 59.1-9.17 of the Virginia Code, the Virginia Antitrust Act must be applied and construed harmoniously with the Sherman Act.”
Commonwealth v. Winslow, 9 Va. Cir. 130 (Prince William Cir. Ct. 1987). · cites it 2× “Since there is no Virginia authority on point, the Court relies upon Section 59.1-9.17 which provides that construction of Virginia’s Antitrust Act should be in harmony with judicial interpretations of comparable federal statutory provisions.”
Neat Sweep Int'l, Ltd. v. Nat'l Chimney Sweep Guild, Inc., 37 Va. Cir. 476 (Richmond County Cir. Ct. 1996). · cites it 2× “Code of Virginia § 59.1-9.17. For plaintiff to prevail on' either the antitrust or conspiracy claim, it must establish the existence of a conspiracy.”
Iris Wireless LLC v. Syniverse Tech., 49 F. Supp. 3d 1022 (M.D. Fla. 2014). “Va. Code § 59.1-9.17 (“[t]his chapter shall be applied and construed to effectuate its general purposes in harmony with judicial interpretation of comparable federal statutory provisions.”
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.