2023 New Mexico Statutes › Chapter 57 - Trade Practices and Regulations › Article 1 - Restraints of Trade › Section 57-1-2 - Monopolies.

It is hereby declared to be unlawful for any person to monopolize or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons to monopolize, trade or commerce, any part of which trade or commerce is within this state.
History:
Laws 1891, ch. 10, § 2; C.L. 1897, § 1293; Code 1915, § 1686; C.S. 1929, § 35-2902; 1941 Comp., § 51-1102; 1953 Comp., § 49-1-2; Laws 1979, ch. 374, § 4.
ANNOTATIONS
Cross references.
— For monopolies being prohibited in the exhibition of motion pictures,
see
57-5-3 NMSA 1978.
For provisions prohibiting monopolies in the financing of automobiles,
see
57-11-1 to 57-11-13 NMSA 1978.
For insurance trade practices,
see
59A-16-1 et seq. NMSA 1978.
For unfair competition in the liquor trade,
see
60-8A-1 NMSA 1978.
Compiler's notes.
— The cases annotated under 57-1-1 NMSA 1978 are also applicable to this section.
Attempt to monopolize shown.
— A competing system clause within a revenue bond issued by a county demonstrated on its face an attempt to monopolize the sale of water services within the county by prohibiting the licensing of competitors and by requiring all residents to connect to the county's system.
City of Sunland Park v. Macias
, 2003-NMCA-098, 134 N.M. 216, 75 P.3d 816, cert. denied, 134 N.M. 179, 74 P.3d 1071.
State action immunity doctrine.
— The rationale underlying the state action immunity doctrine does not apply to causes of action brought pursuant to the New Mexico Antitrust Act, which does not implicate the relationship between federal and state governments.
City of Sunland Park v. Macias
, 2003-NMCA-098, 134 N.M. 216, 75 P.3d 816, cert. denied, 134 N.M. 179, 74 P.3d 1071.
Restrictions against liquor sales in deeds not against public policy.
— In suit to enforce deed restrictions against sale of intoxicating liquors, except in deeds of conveyance in certain block in city, where all other deeds executed by same vendor contained such restriction, the refusal of court to find that purpose of such vendor in his attempt to enforce such restriction and to enjoin sale of such liquors was to create a monopoly or perpetuity in itself and its assigns and successors was not error nor was such restriction against public policy.
Alamogordo Improvement Co. v. Prendergast
, 1940-NMSC-075, 45 N.M. 40, 109 P.2d 254.
Law reviews.
— For article, "New Mexico Restraint of Trade Statutes - A Legislative Proposal," see 9 N.M.L. Rev. 1 (1978-79).
For article, "New Mexico Antitrust Law," see 9 N.M.L. Rev. 339 (1979).
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. —
54A Am. Jur. 2d Monopolies, Restraints of Trade and Unfair Trade Practices §§ 781, 794.
Picketing as violation of antitrust act, 6 A.L.R. 934, 16 A.L.R. 230, 27 A.L.R. 651, 32 A.L.R. 779, 116 A.L.R. 484.
"Open competition plan," "gentleman's agreement," and the like, as violation of antitrust acts, 21 A.L.R. 1109.
Monopoly in dramatic and motion pictures, 26 A.L.R. 369.
Laundry business as within statute relating to monopolies, 31 A.L.R. 533.
Removal or attempted removal of one from field of competition by inducing him to enter another's employment as violation of antimonopoly act, 74 A.L.R. 289.
Taxation of common carriers by automobile as creating monopoly, 75 A.L.R. 46.
Contract by one party to sell his entire output to, or to take his entire requirements of a commodity from, the other party as contrary to public policy or antimonopoly statute, 83 A.L.R. 1173.
Statute providing for sale of intoxicating liquor by state or state agencies as within constitutional prohibition of creation of monopolies, 121 A.L.R. 303.
Validity of statute or ordinance relating to taxicab or bus service as against objection based upon monopolistic tendency or effect, 159 A.L.R. 821.
Participation in a legal combination as defense to action under antitrust act, 160 A.L.R. 381.
Validity, under state constitutions, of nonsigner provisions of Fair Trade Laws, 60 A.L.R.2d 420.
Application to banks and banking institutions of antimonopoly or antitrust laws, 83 A.L.R.2d 374.
Reciprocal dealing as violation of Sherman Antitrust Act (15 USC § 1 et seq.) and Clayton Antitrust Act (15 USC § 12 et seq.), 69 A.L.R. Fed. 330.
58 C.J.S. Monopolies §§ 19, 56 et seq.