Tennessee § 47-25-101 - Trusts, etc., lessening competition or controlling prices unlawful and void.

§ 47-25-101. Trusts, etc., lessening competition or controlling prices unlawful and void.

All 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 in the importation or sale of articles imported into this state, or in the manufacture or sale of articles of domestic growth or of domestic raw material, and all arrangements, contracts, agreements, trusts, or combinations between persons or corporations designed, or which tend, to advance, reduce, or control the price or the cost to the producer or the consumer of any such product or article, are declared to be against public policy, unlawful, and void. Acts 1891, ch. 218, § 1; 1903, ch. 140, § 1; Shan., § 3185; Code 1932, § 5880; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 69-101. Cross-References. Automobile financing, agreements lessening competition, title 55, ch. 13. Community health management information systems, immunity, § 63-6-228 . Peer review committee examining physicians' fees; immunity extends to restraint of trade claims, § 63-6-219 . Tennessee Authorized Corporation Protection Act, title 48, ch. 103, part 4. Tennessee Business Combination Act, title 48, ch. 103, part 2. Tennessee Control Share Acquisition Act, title 48, ch. 103, part 3. Tennessee Greenmail Act, title 48, ch. 103, part 5. Unfair Cigarette Sales Law, ch. 25, part 3 of this title. Unfair Sales Law, title 47, ch. 25, part 2. Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 19 Tenn. Juris., Monopolies and Restraints of Trade, §§ 2-6. Law Reviews. Avoiding Impotence: Rethinking the Standards for Applying State Antitrust Laws to Interstate Commerce, see 54 Vand. L. Rev. 1705 (2001). Covenants Not to Compete: Time for Legislative and Judicial Reform in Tennessee (Brian Kingsley Krumm), 35 U. Mem. L. Rev. 447 (2005). Practicing Preventative Law in the Antitrust Area (Harry B. Ray), 29 No. 3 Tenn. B.J. 30 (1993). Recent Developments in the Law of Trade Practices in Tennessee (Pamela Blass Bracher), 37 No. 12 Tenn. B.J. 26 (2001). Attorney General Opinions. Effect of a “most favored nation” clause in health care contracts, OAG 97-089 (5/29/97). Comparative Legislation. Trade practices: Ala. § 8-10-1 et seq. Ark. Code § 4-70-102 et seq. Ga. O.C.G.A. § 10-1-1 et seq. Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 365.020 et seq. Miss. Code Ann. § 75-23-1 et seq. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 416.011 et seq. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1 et seq. Va. Code § 59.1-9.1 et seq. Cited: Dark Tobacco Growers' Co-op. Ass'n v. Dunn, 150 Tenn. 614, 266 S.W. 308, 1924 Tenn. LEXIS 33 (1924); State ex rel. Attorney-General v. Burley Tobacco Growers' Co-operative Asso., 2 Tenn. App. 674, — S.W. —, 1926 Tenn. App. LEXIS 65 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1926); State ex rel. Shriver v. Leech, 612 S.W.2d 454, 1981 Tenn. LEXIS 412 (Tenn. 1981); Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County v. Ashland Oil, Inc., 529 F. Supp. 407, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10343 (M.D. Tenn. 1982); Nurse Midwifery Associates v. Hibbett, 549 F. Supp. 1185, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15432 (M.D. Tenn. 1982); Tennessee ex rel. Leech v. Dole, 567 F. Supp. 704, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16890 (M.D. Tenn. 1983); Walker v. Bruno's, Inc., 650 S.W.2d 357, 1983 Tenn. LEXIS 775 (Tenn. 1983); Compact v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County, 594 F. Supp. 1567, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22697 (M.D. Tenn. 1984); State v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 18 S.W.3d 186, 2000 Tenn. LEXIS 194 (Tenn. 2000); Sherwood v. Microsoft Corp., 91 F. Supp. 2d 1196, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2780 (M.D. Tenn. 2000); Ezzo's Invs., Inc. v. Royal Beauty Supply, Inc., 243 F.3d 980, 2001 FED App. 75P, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 4251 (6th Cir. 2001); Roberson v. Medtronic, Inc., 494 F. Supp. 2d 864, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50779 (W.D. Tenn. Apr. 23, 2007); Baird Tree Co. v. City of Oak Ridge, 326 S.W.3d 156, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 287 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 26, 2010).