Unless otherwise provided in the Antitrust Act, the Antitrust Act shall be construed in harmony with judicial interpretations of the federal antitrust laws. This construction shall be made to achieve uniform application of the state and federal laws prohibiting restraints of trade and monopolistic practices.
History: 1978 Comp., § 57-1-15, enacted by Laws 1979, ch. 374, § 16.
ANNOTATIONSCompliance with federal substantive law as it relates to oligopolies. — To ensure uniform application of federal and state laws in antitrust actions under the Antitrust Act, 57-1-1 to 57-1-15 NMSA 1978, involving oligopolies, such as the tobacco industry, which are by nature interdependent such that it is likely that when one company acts in a certain manner, the other firms will determine whether it is in their best interest to follow the leader's action, plaintiffs must meet the standard of federal substantive law, which requires that to show that there was an unlawful agreement, plaintiffs must present evidence that tends to exclude the possibility that defendants acted independently or plaintiffs cannot meet their burden of establishing a genuine issue of material fact to withstand summary judgment for defendants. Romero v. Philip Morris, Inc., 2010-NMSC-035, 148 N.M. 713, 242 P.3d 280, rev'g, 2009-NMCA-022, 145 N.M. 658, 203 P.3d 873.
New Mexico looks to federal decisions to determine meaning of "restraint of trade". State v. Ray Bell Oil Co., 1983-NMCA-068, 101 N.M. 368, 683 P.2d 50, cert. denied, 101 N.M. 362, 683 P.2d 44, appeal dismissed, 469 U.S. 1030, 105 S. Ct. 498, 83 L. Ed. 2d 391 (1984).
Determining allegations of antitrust arrangements. — In the absence of New Mexico decisions directly on point, New Mexico courts look to federal cases involving allegations of antitrust arrangements under § 1 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. § 1). Smith Mach. Corp. v. Hesston, Inc., 1985-NMSC-004, 102 N.M. 245, 694 P.2d 501.
Law reviews. — For article, "New Mexico Antitrust Law," see 9 N.M.L. Rev. 339 (1979).