Wash. Rev. Code » Title 19 · Chapter 19.86
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86.060 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
It shall be unlawful for any corporation to acquire, directly or indirectly, the whole or any part of the stock or assets of another corporation where the effect of such acquisition may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce.
This section shall not apply to corporations purchasing such stock solely for investment and not using the same by voting or otherwise to bring about, or in attempting to bring about, the substantial lessening of competition. Nor shall anything contained in this section prevent a corporation from causing the formation of subsidiary corporations for the actual carrying on of their immediate lawful business, or the natural and legitimate branches or extensions thereof, or from owning and holding all or a part of the stock of such subsidiary corporations, when the effect of such formation is not to substantially lessen competition.
In addition to any other remedy provided by this chapter, the superior court may order any corporation to divest itself of the stock or assets held contrary to this section, in the manner and within the time fixed by said order.
[ 1961 c 216 s 6.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1977–2025 · leading case: Tanner Elec. Coop. v. Puget Sound Power & Light, 911 P.2d 1301 (Wash. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Tanner Elec. Coop. v. Puget Sound Power & Light, 911 P.2d 1301 (Wash. 1996). · cites it 2× “050 (tying arrangements), RCW 19.86.060 (corporate acquisitions that lessen competition).”
Short v. Demopolis, 691 P.2d 163 (Wash. 1984). · cites it 2× “RCW 19.86.060; RCW 19.86.070; RCW 19.86.170.”
Strenge v. Clarke, 569 P.2d 60 (Wash. 1977). · cites it 2× “090, which is in issue here, is that the words "superior court" in that section also appear in the same chapter in RCW 19.86.060, .100, .110, and .140. RCW 19.”
State of California Ex Rel. Van De Kamp v. Texaco, 762 P.2d 385 (Cal. 1988). · cites it 2× “73, § 4); Wash. Rev. Code, § 19.86.060 (1961 Wash. Laws, ch.”
Ernst Home Ctr., Inc. v. United Food & Com. Workers Int'l Union, 888 P.2d 1196 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). “See RCW 19.86.060, .070, .170. In particular, RCW 19.”
Naini v. King Cnty. Hosp. Dist. No 2 (W.D. Wash. 2019). · cites it 2× “) Moreover, if the Superior Court had intended to preclude future 10 claims for damages, then it would not have made a point to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim under the 11 Washington Consumer Protection Act, Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86.060 , “without prejudice to any 12 breach of…”
Cochrane v. Am. Guarantee & Liab. Ins. Co. (W.D. Wash. 2020). “Code 10 § 19.86.060. “Violations of WAC 284-30-330 are per se violations of [the CPA].”
Wang v. Esurance Ins. Co. (W.D. Wash. 2025). “1986); RCW 19.86.060. “Violations of WAC 284- 17 30-330 are per se violations of [the CPA].”
John R. Johnston & Darcee L. Fox-johnston, Res. v. Peter A. Torkild, Apps. (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “See RCW 19.86.060. As the prevailing party on appeal, the Johnstons are also entitled to attorney fees on appeal, subject to compliance with RAP 18.”
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.