A. No provision of this chapter shall be construed to make illegal:
1. The activities of any labor or professional organization or of individual members thereof that are directed solely to labor or professional objectives legitimate under the laws of the Commonwealth or the United States.
2. The activities of any agricultural or horticultural cooperative organization, or of individual members thereof, to the extent necessary to achieve the aims of the enacted laws of either the Commonwealth or the United States.
3. The bona fide religious and charitable activities of any nonprofit corporation, trust or organization established exclusively for religious or charitable purposes.
B. Nothing contained in this chapter shall make unlawful conduct that is authorized, regulated or approved (i) by a statute of the Commonwealth or (ii) by an administrative or constitutionally established agency of the Commonwealth or of the United States having jurisdiction of the subject matter and having authority to consider the anticompetitive effect, if any, of such conduct. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to alter or terminate any other applicable limitation, exemption or exclusion.
1974, c. 545; 1979, c. 640; 2018, c. 574.
Notes of Decisions
Reasor v. City of Norfolk, Va., 606 F. Supp. 788 (E.D. Va. 1984).
· cites it 6× “Va.Code § 59.1-9.4(b)(l). As this Court has already concluded that the City’s action was authorized under the Parker analysis, the statutory exclusion, which is broader, because it does not require “clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed policy”, must also apply.”
Command Force Sec., Inc. v. City of Portsmouth, 968 F. Supp. 1069 (E.D. Va. 1997).
· cites it 2× “Further, Va.Code Ann. § 59.1-9.4(b)(l) exempts from scrutiny under the VAA any “conduct that is authorized, regulated, or approved .”
Commonwealth Life Ins. v. Clinch Valley Cmty. Hosp., 19 Va. Cir. 514 (Tazewell Cir. Ct. 1982).
· cites it 2× “4(b) for activities not prohibited by the Virginia Antitrust Act which provides in part: (b) Nothing contained in this chapter shall make unlawful conduct that is authorized, regulated, or approved (1) by a statute of this State, or (2) by an administrative or constitutionally…”
Kuhn v. West Alexandria Props., Inc., 22 Va. Cir. 439 (Alexandria Cir. Ct. 1980).
“74 of the Virginia Code specifically authorizes the declarant to enter into a management contract, such management contract may not be the subject of an antitrust violation by virtue of the provisions of § 59.1-9.4(b) of the Virginia *458 Code. The Court does not believe that…”
Va. Code Ann. § 59.1-9.4(b): 3 cases
Commonwealth Life Ins. v. Clinch Valley Cmty. Hosp., 19 Va. Cir. 514 (Tazewell Cir. Ct. 1982).
“4(b) for activities not prohibited by the Virginia Antitrust Act which provides in part: (b) Nothing contained in this chapter shall make unlawful conduct that is authorized, regulated, or approved (1) by a statute of this State, or (2) by an administrative or constitutionally…”
Kuhn v. West Alexandria Props., Inc., 22 Va. Cir. 439 (Alexandria Cir. Ct. 1980).
“74 of the Virginia Code specifically authorizes the declarant to enter into a management contract, such management contract may not be the subject of an antitrust violation by virtue of the provisions of § 59.1-9.4(b) of the Virginia *458 Code. The Court does not believe that…”
Va. Code Ann. § 59.1-9.4(b)(l): 2 cases
Reasor v. City of Norfolk, Va., 606 F. Supp. 788 (E.D. Va. 1984).
“Va.Code § 59.1-9.4(b)(l). As this Court has already concluded that the City’s action was authorized under the Parker analysis, the statutory exclusion, which is broader, because it does not require “clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed policy”, must also apply.”
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.