Abstract
The Ohio Supreme Court has held that the Valentine Act was patterned after the Sherman Act and should be interpreted in light of federal court interpretations of the Sherman Act. The Court was wrong, and its error persists. With the exception of a private right of action provision and a borrowed definition, nothing in the Valentine Act was derived from the Sherman Act. The holding ignores text and legislative history and has foreclosed development of any independent jurisprudence for a statute intended by the General Assembly to address grave antitrust abuses. This Article analyzes the Court’s error, details the origins of the Valentine Act, and proposes an approach for correct application of the statute.
Recommended Citation
Thomas J. Collin,
Valentine Act and Sherman Act: Separate and Distinct Antitrust Regimes,
74 Clev. St. L. Rev.
361
(2026)
available at https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clevstlrev/vol74/iss2/6
Included in
Antitrust and Trade Regulation Commons, Courts Commons, Jurisprudence Commons, State and Local Government Law Commons