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

Va. Code Ann. § 59.1-9.5 (2026)

Contracts, etc., in restraint of trade unlawful

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Every contract, combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce of this Commonwealth is unlawful.

1974, c. 545.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases, 1982–2011 · leading case: Levine v. McLeskey, 881 F. Supp. 1030 (E.D. Va. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Levine v. McLeskey, 881 F. Supp. 1030 (E.D. Va. 1995). · cites it 10× “Plaintiff Levine’s claims under § 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Virginia Antitrust Act, Code § 59.1-9.5. (Counts I and IV) Levine claims that McLeskey violated § 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and § 59.”
Net Realty Holding Trust v. Franconia Props., Inc., 544 F. Supp. 759 (E.D. Va. 1982). · cites it 12× “IV 1980); Va.Code §§ 59.1-9.5,-9.6 (1982). Second, the plaintiff asserts that the restriction is not binding, because performance of it is impossible.”
Haigh v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am., 676 F. Supp. 1332 (E.D. Va. 1987). · cites it 5× “and Va.Code § 59.1-9.5. Specifically, the Bowman exception applies because Haigh alleges he was discharged for his refusal to commit an illegal act.”
Cont'l Airlines, Inc. v. United Air Lines, Inc., 120 F. Supp. 2d 556 (E.D. Va. 2000). · cites it 6× “§ 1 , (Count I) and its Virginia counterpart, Va. Code § 59.1-9.5, (Count II); (ii) for intentional interference with contractual relations (Count III) and with prospective economic advantage (Count IV); and (iii) for violation of the Virginia Business Conspiracy Statute, Va.”
Reid v. Boyle, 527 S.E.2d 137 (Va. 2000). · cites it 2× “” Code § 59.1-9.5 states: “Every contract, combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce of this Commonwealth is unlawful.”
Reasor v. City of Norfolk, Va., 606 F. Supp. 788 (E.D. Va. 1984). · cites it 3× “Antitrust Claims — Counts 7 through 11 In Counts 7 through 11, the plaintiffs have alleged that the City has violated the Sherman Act and the Virginia Antitrust Act.”
Reynolds Metals Co. v. Columbia Gas Sys., Inc., 669 F. Supp. 744 (E.D. Va. 1987). · cites it 3× “Counts Five and Six allege that the Columbia System Companies acted in violation of the Virginia Antitrust Act, Va.Code §§ 59.1-9.5 and 59.1-9.-6. Plaintiff seeks threefold the damages it has allegedly sustained, an injunction preventing further violation of the Sherman and…”
Virginia Vermiculite, Ltd. v. W.R. Grace & Co.-Conn., 108 F. Supp. 2d 549 (W.D. Va. 2000). · cites it 2× “VIRGINIA ANTITRUST ACT The Virginia Antitrust Act prohibits “[e]very contract, combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce,” Va.Code Ann. § 59.1-9.5 (Michie 1998), and “[e]very conspiracy combination, or attempt to monopolize, or monopolization of, trade or…”
Cont'l Airlines, Inc. v. United Air Lines, Inc., 126 F. Supp. 2d 962 (E.D. Va. 2001). · cites it 3× “§ 1 , (Count I) and the corresponding Virginia statutory provision, Va.Code § 59.1-9.5, (Count II); (ii) intentional interference with contractual relations (Count III) and with prospective economic advantage (Count IV); and (iii) violation of the Virginia Business Conspiracy…”
Thompson Everett, Inc. v. Nat'l Cable Advert., 850 F. Supp. 470 (E.D. Va. 1994). · cites it 3× “Counts VI and VII assert that the preceding actions constitute violations of the Virginia antitrust statutes, Va.Code §§ 59.1-9.5, -9.6, and business conspiracy statutes, Va.”
Virginia Vermiculite, Ltd. v. W.R. Grace & Co.-Conn., 965 F. Supp. 802 (W.D. Va. 1997). · cites it 2× “Code *829 § 59.1-9.5, and “[e]very conspiracy combination, or attempt to monopolize, or monopolization of; trade or commerce.”
Stephen Jay Photography, Ltd. v. Olan Mills, Inc., 713 F. Supp. 937 (E.D. Va. 1989). · cites it 2× “§ 1 (Count I), and Section 59.1-9.5 of the Code of Virginia (Count V) are DISMISSED with prejudice.”
Show all 18 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.