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.