Section 35-31 - Exceptions(a) Nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed to forbid the existence or operation of labor, agricultural, or horticultural organizations instituted for the purpose of mutual help, and not having capital stock and not conducted for profit, or to forbid or restrain individual members of such organizations from lawfully carrying out the legitimate objects thereof. Such organizations, or the members thereof, shall not be held or construed to be illegal combinations or conspiracies or monopolies in restraint of trade, under the provisions of this chapter.(b) Nothing contained in this chapter shall apply to those activities of any person when said activity is specifically directed or required by a statute of this state, or of the United States.(c) Nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed to prevent persons engaged in the production of agricultural products as farmers, planters, dairymen or growers from acting together in associations, corporate or otherwise, with or without capital stock, in collectively processing, preparing for market, handling and marketing in interstate and foreign commerce, such products of persons so engaged. Such associations may have marketing agencies in common; and such associations and their members may make the necessary contracts and agreements to effect such purposes; provided, such associations are operated for the mutual benefit of the members thereof, as such producers, and conform to one or both of the following requirements: (i) That no member of the association is allowed more than one vote because of the amount of stock or membership capital he may own therein, or, (ii) that the association does not pay dividends on stock or membership capital in excess of eight per cent per annum, and, (iii) that the association shall not deal in the products of nonmembers to an amount greater in value than such as are handled by it for members.(1971, P.A. 608, S. 8; P.A. 75-567, S. 4, 80; P.A. 77-604, S. 21, 84.)
Cited. 179 C. 324. Cited. 35 Conn.Supp. 136. Subsec. (b): Activities relative to interconnection of telephone devices, though regulated by state agencies, are not specifically directed or required by statute, and are therefore not immune from antitrust liability under Subsec. 169 Conn. 344. Cited. 181 Conn. 655; 235 Conn. 1. Sec. 35-44b was inapplicable in present case concerning a state antitrust statute without federal parallel and did not require court to incorporate federal case law defining state action immunity into its construction of Subsec.; Subsec. has no parallel in federal antitrust statutes and its specific language, which provides qualified state action immunity for anticompetitive conduct that is specifically directed or required by statute, takes precedence over the general language of case law construing generalized provisions of federal statutes covering same subject matter; trial court improperly rendered summary judgment for defendants as there was a genuine issue of material fact as to existence of wholesale water market in southeastern Connecticut and defendants were not specifically directed or required by statute to engage in all of the anticompetitive activities and thus were not immune from antitrust liability under subsection. 273 C. 786. Given the city was acting in a proprietary rather than regulatory capacity when enforcing a project labor agreement in a pre-bid specification that required the successful bidder to perform all project work with union labor, the city was not entitled to qualified immunity for its anticompetitive conduct. 303 Conn. 402.