50-115.
History: L. 1889, ch. 257, § 4; R.S. 1923, 50-115; L. 1985, ch. 181, § 3; L. 2000, ch. 136, § 12; Repealed, L. 2013, ch. 102, § 7; April 18.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
Similarity to Clayton-Sherman Acts and recent Kansas antitrust litigation discussed, Kenton C. Granger, 8 W.L.J. 1 (1968).
"Legislative Wrap-Up," Callie Hartle, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. 30, No. 6, 16 (2007).
"2013 Legislative Session Report," Callie Jill Denton, 36 J.K.A.J. No. 6 (2013).
"Kansas Antitrust Developments in the 21 st Century: A Perspective from the Attorney General's Office," Derek Schmidt and Lynette R. Bakker, 68 K.L.R. 875 (2020).
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Action hereunder; testimony taken at inquisition not taken in violation of constitutional rights nor unlawfully. State, ex rel., v. American Oil Co., 202 Kan. 185, 186, 446 P.2d 754.
2. Plaintiff sustained no damage; no basis for recovery. Winter v. Kansas Hospital Service Ass'n, Inc., 1 Kan. App. 2d 64, 66, 68, 562 P.2d 98.
3. Antitrust action against investor-owned public utility; cities entitled to power generated at prevailing rates. City of Chanute v. Kansas Gas & Elec. Co., 564 F. Supp. 1416, 1417 (1983).
4. Cited; failure to provide private remedies in Kansas Uniform Trade Practices Act (K.S.A. 40-2401 et seq.) implies no private remedy intended. Earth Scientists v. United States Fidelity Ex Guar., 619 F. Supp. 1465, 1471 (1985).
5. Indirect purchasers have antitrust standing under K.S.A. 50-101 et seq., to sue for full consideration of product purchased. Four B Corp. v. Daicel Chemical Industries, Ltd., 253 F. Supp. 2d 1147, 1150 (2003).
6. The Kansas Legislature's 2013 repeal of section does not have retroactive application to a pending 2005 case because the savings statute does not clearly provide that the repeal should apply retroactively, and the Kansas Supreme Court has held that this section creates substantive rights. Reorganized FLI, Inc. v. Williams Companies, Inc., 410 F. Supp. 3d 1213, 1223 (D. Kan 2019).
7. Repeal of K.S.A. 50-115 applies retroactively because the statute was purely remedial, applying the repeal retroactively does not present any due process concerns, and the retroactive application promotes the purpose of the legislative change. Reorganized FLI Inc. v. Williams Companies, Inc., 1 F.4th 1214, 1224 (10 th Cir. 2021).
|
|