Code of Alabama

Ala. Code § 8-20-1 (2026)

Short Title.

✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaAla. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

This chapter may be cited as “The Motor Vehicle Franchise Act.”

(Acts 1981, No. 81-390, p. 596, §1.)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1989–2023 · leading case: Serra Chevrolet, Inc. v. Edwards Chevrolet, 850 So. 2d 259 (Ala. 2002).
Serra Chevrolet, Inc. v. Edwards Chevrolet, 850 So. 2d 259 (Ala. 2002). · cites it 3× “In its September 25, 2001, order ruling on GM's postjudgment motions the trial court stated, in pertinent part: "One of the fairly debatable issues which requires in part an analysis of the Motor Vehicle Franchise Act (`MVFA'), Ala.Code § 8-20-1, et seq., is the statute of…”
Coblentz GMC/Freightliner v. Gen. Motors Corp., 724 F. Supp. 1364 (M.D. Ala. 1989). · cites it 2× “; 1975 Ala.Code §§ 8-20-1, et seq. [6] It appears from the complaint as amended that Coblentz asserts jurisdiction over all the defendants on the basis of diversity.”
Edwards v. Kia Motors of Am., Inc., 8 So. 3d 277 (Ala. 2008). · cites it 2× “("KMA"), in federal court, alleging violations of the Alabama Motor Vehicle Franchise Act, § 8-20-1 et seq., Ala.Code 1975 ("the Franchise Act").”
Gen. Motors Corp. v. Bell, 714 So. 2d 268 (Ala. 1996). · cites it 2× “81-390, *273 codified at Ala. Code 1975, § 8-20-1 et seq. ("the Dealer Act"), by, among other things, 1) refusing to compensate the dealership for warranty work at the same rates that the dealership charged its retail customers for similar non-warranty service and repairs (see §…”
Tittle v. Steel City Oldsmobile GMC Truck, Inc., 544 So. 2d 883 (Ala. 1989). “The Alabama legislature passed the Motor Vehicle Franchise Act in 1981, § 8-20-1 et seq., Ala. Code (1975). At that time, the legislature declared the purpose of the Act: "The legislature finds and declares that the distribution and sale of motor vehicles within this state…”
DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Morrow, 895 So. 2d 861 (Ala. 2004). “Code 1975, a part of the Motor Vehicle Franchise Act, § 8-20-1 et seq., Ala.Code 1975 ("the Act").”
Chrysler Corp. v. Schiffer, 736 So. 2d 538 (Ala. 1999). · cites it 2× “81-390, codified at Ala.Code 1975, § 8-20-1 et seq. (`the Dealer Act'), by, among other things, 1) *541 refusing to compensate the dealership for warranty work at the same rates that the dealership charged its retail customers for similar non-warranty service and repairs (see §…”
Sperau v. Ford Motor Co., 674 So. 2d 24 (Ala. 1995). “Foster and Sperau filed a complaint against Ford Motor Company on May 15, 1991, alleging fraud, breach of contract, and violation of the Motor Vehicle Franchise Act, § 8-20-1 et seq., Code of Alabama 1975. Their complaint was first amended to contain a count for civil…”
DaimlerChrysler Motors Corp. v. Susan Schein Chrysler, Plymouth, Dodge, Inc., 853 So. 2d 925 (Ala. 2003). · cites it 3× “Code 1975, a part of the Motor Vehicle Franchise Act, § 8-20-1 et seq., Ala.Code 1975 (“the Act”).”
Smith's Sports Cycles, Inc. v. Am. Suzuki Motor Corp.., 82 So. 3d 682 (Ala. 2011). “Smith subsequently sued Suzuki, alleging that the nonrenewal or termination of the franchise agreement constituted a breach of the franchise agreement and that the termination was in violation of the Alabama Motor Vehicle Franchise Act, § 8-20-1 et seq., Ala.Code 1975 (“the…”
Sutherlin Toyota, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales USA, Inc., 549 So. 2d 460 (Ala. 1989). “As a result of this counterclaim, Sutherlin sought indemnification from TMS pursuant to the Alabama Motor *461 Vehicle Franchise Act, §§ 8-20-1 through -12, Ala.Code 1975, for all damages and attorney fees arising from the counterclaim.”
TS & A Motors, LLC d/b/a Kia of Somersworth v. Kia Motors Am., Inc., 208 A.3d 429 (N.H. 2019). “Like our statute, the Alabama Motor Vehicle Franchise Act, see Ala. Code §§ 8-20-1 to 8-20-14 (1975), prescribes a 180-day look-back period within which a manufacturer must first acquire knowledge of a dealer's breach prior to sending notice of termination.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.