Connecticut v. Leviton Manufacturing Co., Inc., et al. (In re: Electrical Wiring Devices Antitrust Litigation)No. H-79-64 (D. Conn. 1978)
Various manufacturers of electrical wiring devices settled Attorney General’s claims of price fixing via entry of consent decree prohibiting such conduct and payment of monetary forfeiture. Parallel USDOJ criminal case
Connecticut v. Levi Strauss & Co., No. 221357 (Conn. Super. Ct. Hartford Dist. 1978)
Defendant clothing manufacturer settled Attorney General’s claims of resale price maintenance via consent decree enjoining such conduct and payment of monetary forfeiture.
Connecticut, et al. v. BL Makepeace, Inc., et al., No. 79-642 (D.Conn.)
Retail vendors of architectural, engineering and drafting supplies, equipment and blueprint services settled Attorney General?s claims of price fixing and unlawful market allocation via entry of a consent decree which prohibited such conduct and payment of a monetary forfeiture.
Connecticut v. Randall Television, et al., No. CV-81-025636S (Conn. Super Ct. Hartford Dist. 1981)
Television retailers settled Attorney General’s claim that they fixed the prices of specific brand television sets and agreed to cooperatively advertise them at the fixed price, via entry of a consent decree that enjoined such conduct and payment of a civil penalty.
Connecticut v. Candlewood Shores Estates, Inc, No. CV-78-170142 (Conn. Super. Ct. Danbury 1981)
A Connecticut real estate brokerage and land development firm was barred by a final consent judgment from using restrictive covenants to condition the sale and lease of real estate in a residential development on the use of the firm as the exclusive broker. The firm also was required to release all exclusive brokerage covenants and send notice of the release to all home-owners in the development.
Connecticut v. Michael Kabot d/b/a Cabot’s Viking Sewing Machine Ctr, No. CV-79-0240205 (Conn. Super Ct. Hartford Dist. 1979)
Retail sewing machine dealer settled Attorney General’s claim price fixing and resale price maintenance via entry of a consent decree enjoining such conduct and payment of a civil penalty
Connecticut v. Nilsson et al., No. CV-205507 HAS (Conn. Super. Ct. Hartford Dist.1978)
Defendants enjoined and restrained from enforcing or attempting to enforce a covenant contained in the real estate sales agreement wherein: “Buyers further agree that they will not deal with John Miller and Associates at any time regarding this subdivision.”
Connecticut v. Susan Bristol, Inc. (Ct. Super. Ct., Hartford, 1980)
Defendant manufacturer/wholesale distributor of apparel was permanently enjoined and restrained from fixing or controlling the price at which any of its dealers may advertise, promote or offer for sale any product at retail.
Connecticut v. Journeymen Barbers Hairdressers and Cosmetologists International
Action claiming illegality of defendants’ pricing practices via use of a minimum fee schedule.
Connecticut v. Viking Sewing Machine Co., Inc., No. CV-79-0240205 (Ct. Super. Ct., Hartford 1979)
Manufacturer of sewing machines was prohibited by a consent decree from agreeing with dealers on resale prices or advertised resale prices in Connecticut for a three-year period.
