West Virginia Code

W. Va. Code § 47-18-8 (2026)

Injunctions and other relief; violations; jurisdiction

✓ 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.

§47-18-8. Injunctions and other relief; violations; jurisdiction.

The Attorney General may institute proceedings to prevent and restrain violations of the provisions of this article. In addition to granting such temporary, interlocutory, or permanent relief as is necessary to prevent and restrain a violation, the courts of this state may grant injunctions reasonably necessary to restore and preserve competition in the trade or commerce affected by a violation of this article.

If a permanent injunction is issued in such proceedings, reasonable costs of the action may be awarded the state, including but not limited to expenses of discovery and document reproduction.

In addition to injunctive relief authorized, any person who violates the provisions of this article shall be liable to a penalty of not more than the greater of a total of $100,000 or $500 per day for each and every day of said violation.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1986–2007 · leading case: Kessel v. Monongalia Cnty. Gen. Hosp. Co., 648 S.E.2d 366 (W. Va. 2007).
Kessel v. Monongalia Cnty. Gen. Hosp. Co., 648 S.E.2d 366 (W. Va. 2007). · cites it 2× “By specifically setting forth *620 in W. Va.Code § 47-18-8(b) those activities it intended to constitute per se restraints of trade, the Legislature triggered use of a fundamental principle of statutory construction, being expressio unius est exclusio alterius.”
State Ex Rel. Palumbo v. Graley's Body Shop, Inc., 425 S.E.2d 177 (W. Va. 1992). “Code, 47-18-10 [1978] provides: A final judgment rendered in any civil proceeding brought by the State for violation of this article to the effect that a defendant has violated said article shall be prima facie evidence against such defendant in any proceeding brought by any…”
West Virginia Ex Rel. Brown v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins., 633 F. Supp. 607 (S.D.W. Va 1986). “The Court notes that the Attorney General can, under the laws of the State of West Virginia, represent the State of West Virginia in an action such as the one here maintained.”
W. Va. Code § 47-18-8(b): 1 case
Kessel v. Monongalia Cnty. Gen. Hosp. Co., 648 S.E.2d 366 (W. Va. 2007). “By specifically setting forth *620 in W. Va.Code § 47-18-8(b) those activities it intended to constitute per se restraints of trade, the Legislature triggered use of a fundamental principle of statutory construction, being expressio unius est exclusio alterius.”
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.