West Virginia Code

W. Va. Code § 47-18-3 (2026)

Contracts and combinations in restraint of trade

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WV-LEGwvlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

ARTICLE 18. ANTITRUST ACT; RESTRAINT OF TRADE.

§47-18-3. Contracts and combinations in restraint of trade.

(a) Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce in this state shall be unlawful.

(b) Without limiting the effect of subsection (a) of this section, the following shall be deemed to restrain trade or commerce unreasonably and are unlawful:

(1) A contract, combination or conspiracy between two or more persons:

(A) for the purpose or with the effect of fixing, controlling, or maintaining the market price, rate or fee of any commodity or service; or

(B) fixing, controlling, maintaining, limiting or discontinuing the production, manufacture, mining, sale or supply of any commodity, or the sale or supply of any service, for the purpose or with the effect of fixing, controlling or maintaining the market price, rate or fee of the commodity or service; or

(2) A contract, combination or conspiracy between two or more persons whereby, in the letting of any public or private contract:

(A) the price quotation of any bid is fixed or controlled; or

(B) one or more persons submits a bid intending it to be higher than another bid and thus complementary thereto, submits a bid intending it to be substantially identical to another bid, or refrains from the submission of a bid.

(3) A contract, combination or conspiracy between two or more persons refusing to deal with any other person or persons for the purpose of effecting any of the acts described in subdivisions (1) and (2) of this subsection.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 14 cases, 1989–2018 · leading case: Kessel v. Monongalia Cnty. Gen. Hosp. Co., 648 S.E.2d 366 (W. Va. 2007).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Kessel v. Monongalia Cnty. Gen. Hosp. Co., 648 S.E.2d 366 (W. Va. 2007). · cites it 162× “1, which provides: [i]t shall be unlawful under W. Va.Code §§ 47-18-3, 4 for any person or group of persons to enter into tie-in agreements.”

West Virginia CVS Pharmacy, LLC v. McDowell Pharmacy, Inc., 796 S.E.2d 574 (W. Va. 2017). · cites it 4× “2011); 6 and also alleged tortious interference, fraud, and violations of W. Va. Code § 47-18-3 (1978) (Repl. Vol. 2015).”

Princeton Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Erie Ins., 690 S.E.2d 587 (W. Va. 2009). · cites it 12× “See W.Va.Code § 47-18-3 (2006). 9 .In addition to appealing from the trial court’s failure to grant it judgment as a matter of law post-trial, Erie appeals from the trial court’s failure to dismiss Appellees’ antitrust claims for failure to state a claim under the WV Antitrust…”

State Ex Rel. Palumbo v. Graley's Body Shop, Inc., 425 S.E.2d 177 (W. Va. 1992). · cites it 4× “Such conduct may be violative of W.Va. Code §§ 47-18-3 (1986). The subpoenas issued by the Attorney General requesting the appellees to appear for oral deposition stated: This subpoena is being issued pursuant to the authority granted to the Attorney General by W.”

In Re Chocolate Confectionary Antitrust Litig., 602 F. Supp. 2d 538 (M.D. Penn. 2009). “” W. VaCode § 47-18-3(a). Substantive provisions of the WVAA must be interpreted consistently with federal law, 55 Kessel v.”

United States v. Microsoft Corp., 87 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2000). · cites it 2× “02; Utah Code'§ 76-10-914; W.Va. Code §§ 47-18-3, 47-18-4; Wis. Stat.”

In Re Digit. Music Antitrust Litig., 812 F. Supp. 2d 390 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). “West Virginia and South Dakota have statutes that courts have held to be ambiguous as to whether the conspiracy or the conduct must be alleged to have been within the state. S.D. Codified Laws § 37-1-3.”

Sheet Metal Workers Local 441 Health & Welfare Plan v. Glaxosmithkline, PLC, 737 F. Supp. 2d 380 (E.D. Pa. 2010). “2007), where the Supreme Court of West Virginia observed that, "[t]he primary distinction between W. Va.Code § 47-18-3(a) and Section 1 of the Sherman Act is that the West Virginia statute applies to contracts and conspiracies in restraint of trade 'in this State' while the…”

In Re Terazosin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litig., 160 F. Supp. 2d 1365 (S.D. Fla. 2001). “1 (same); W. Va. Code § 47-18-3 (same); see also Miss.”

California v. Infineon Tech. AG, 531 F. Supp. 2d 1124 (N.D. Cal. 2007). “See W. Va.Code § 47-18-3. As such, the court does not read this activity to be covered by the Consumer Credit and Protection Act, which is generally intended to apply to conduct that generally “creates a likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding” regarding goods and…”

Precision Piping & Instruments, Inc. v. E.I. duPont De Nemours & Co., 707 F. Supp. 225 (S.D.W. Va 1989). · cites it 3× “Code, §§ 47-18-3 and 4, 1 respectively. The Plaintiff has also stated a cause of action for intentional interference with business and contractual relationships.”

In Re Digit. Music Antitrust Litig., 592 F. Supp. 2d 435 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). “§ 47-25-101 (2008) (prohibiting ”[a]ll arrangements, contracts, agreements, trusts, or combinations between persons or corporations made with a view to lessen, or which tend to lessen, full and free competition”); W.Va.Code § 47-18-3 (prohibiting "[e]vety contract, combination…”

Show all 14 citing cases →

— W. Va. Code § 47-18-3(a) — 5 cases

Kessel v. Monongalia Cnty. Gen. Hosp. Co., 648 S.E.2d 366 (W. Va. 2007). “1, which provides: [i]t shall be unlawful under W. Va.Code §§ 47-18-3, 4 for any person or group of persons to enter into tie-in agreements.”

Princeton Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Erie Ins., 690 S.E.2d 587 (W. Va. 2009). “See W.Va.Code § 47-18-3 (2006). 9 .In addition to appealing from the trial court’s failure to grant it judgment as a matter of law post-trial, Erie appeals from the trial court’s failure to dismiss Appellees’ antitrust claims for failure to state a claim under the WV Antitrust…”

Precision Piping & Instruments, Inc. v. E.I. duPont De Nemours & Co., 707 F. Supp. 225 (S.D.W. Va 1989). “Code, §§ 47-18-3 and 4, 1 respectively. The Plaintiff has also stated a cause of action for intentional interference with business and contractual relationships.”

— W. Va. Code § 47-18-3(b) — 1 case

— W. Va. Code § 47-18-3(b)(1) — 1 case

— W. Va. Code § 47-18-3(b)(1)(A)(B) — 1 case

— W. Va. Code § 47-18-3(b)(1)(C) — 1 case

— W. Va. Code § 47-18-3(b)(2) — 1 case

— W. Va. Code § 47-18-3(b)(3) — 1 case

— W. Va. Code § 47-18-3(b)(l) — 1 case

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.