W. Va. Code » §47-18-4. Establishment, maintenance or use of monopoly.
West Virginia Code

W. Va. Code § 47-18-4 (2026)

Establishment, maintenance or use of monopoly

✓ 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.

§47-18-4. Establishment, maintenance or use of monopoly.

The establishment, maintenance or use of a monopoly or an attempt to establish a monopoly of trade or commerce, any part of which is within this state, by any persons for the purpose of excluding competition or controlling, fixing or maintaining prices is unlawful.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1989–2013 · 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 4× “Code § 47-18-3 as W. Va.Code § 47-18-4 (1978) is not at issue in this litigation.”
United States v. Microsoft Corp., 87 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2000). · cites it 2× “02 (Anderson 1993); Utah Code § 76-10-914 (1999); W.Va.Code § 47-18-4 (1999); Wis. Stat. § 133.”
In Re New Motor Vehs. Canadian Exp. Antitrust Litig., 350 F. Supp. 2d 160 (D. Me. 2004). “” W. Va.Code § 47-18-4. The motion to dismiss the West Virginia antitrust claim is therefore Denied.”
Sheet Metal Workers Local 441 Health & Welfare Plan v. Glaxosmithkline, PLC, 737 F. Supp. 2d 380 (E.D. Pa. 2010). “W. Va. Code § 47-18-4 . “Trade or commerce” is defined to include “all economic activity involving or relating to any commodity or service.”
Louisa Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Pepsi-Cola Metro. Bottling Co., 94 F. Supp. 2d 804 (E.D. Ky. 1999). · cites it 2× “§ 2 and W.Va.Code 47-18-4. Counts V & XII (attempted monopolization): Pepsi-Metro engaged in anti-competitive conduct for the sole purpose of controlling prices and/or output and/or destroying competition in violation of 15 U.”
Coca-Cola Co. v. Harmar Bottling Co., 111 S.W.3d 287 (Tex. App. 2003). “1 (1977); and W. VaCode § 47-18-4 (1978). This case certainly involves anticompeti-tive conduct that occurred partly in Texas and which affects consumers in Texas and other states.”
Precision Piping & Instruments, Inc. v. E.I. duPont De Nemours & Co., 707 F. Supp. 225 (S.D.W. Va 1989). · cites it 2× “” Section 47-18-4 of the West Virginia Code provides as follows: “The establishment, maintenance or use of a monopoly or an attempt to establish a monopoly of trade or commerce, any part of which is within this State, by any persons for the purpose of excluding competition or…”
Roberts v. Adkins, 444 S.E.2d 725 (W. Va. 1994). “West Virginia Code § 47-18-4 prohibits the establishment, maintenance or use of a monopoly- 6 .”
West Virginia ex rel. Morrisey v. Pfizer, Inc., 969 F. Supp. 2d 476 (S.D.W. Va 2013). · cites it 2× “Count II of the complaint charges Pfizer with violating W. Va.Code § 47-18-4, which prohibits “[t]he establishment, maintenance or use of a monopoly or an attempt to establish a monopoly of trade or commerce.”
the Coca-Cola Co. v. Harmar Bottling Co. (Tex. App. 2003). “1 (1977); and W. Va. Code § 47-18-4 (1978). This case certainly involves anticompetitive conduct that occurred partly in Texas and which affects consumers in Texas and other states.”
Gloria H. Reed, Individually & as Indep. of the Est. of Hermon E. Reed, Sr., Elbert Reed, Hermon Reed, Jr., Charles Reed, Jr., & Yolanda Reed v. Gary Reed, Norvell Reed, & Early Dan Reed, Jr. (Tex. App. 2008). “1 (1977); and W. Va. Code § 47-18-4 (1978). This case certainly involves anticompetitive conduct that occurred partly in Texas and which affects consumers in Texas and other states.”
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.