§437-36 Injunction; damages. The motor
vehicle industry licensing board or any person, firm, or corporation or any
trade association may maintain a suit to enjoin the performance or the
continuance of any act or acts by a person acting without a license where a
license is required by this chapter, and if injured thereby, for the recovery
of damages. If in the suit the court finds that the defendant has violated or
is violating any of the provisions of this chapter it may enjoin the defendant
from further violation thereof. It shall not be necessary that actual damages
to the plaintiff or petitioner be alleged or proved. Plaintiff or petitioner
shall be entitled, if the plaintiff or petitioner procures a decree hereunder,
to a reasonable attorney's fee to be allowed by the court. [L 1949, c 163, §2;
am L 1951, c 90, pt of §1; RL 1955, §160-181; HRS §437-36; am L 1969, c 263,
§1(22); gen ch 1985]
Rules of Court
Injunctions, see HRCP rule 65.
Notes of Decisions
Soderholm Sales & Leasing, Inc. v. BYD Motors Inc. (D. Haw. 2019).
· cites it 2× “§ 437-28 (a)(21)(C) and § 437-58(g) (“Count II”); 3) BYD’s sales efforts that violate the licensing provision of the Agreement also violate the MVILA (“Count III”); 4) a misrepresentation claim based upon BYD’s representation to industry members that BYD has terminated the…”
Soderholm Sales & Leasing, Inc. v. BYD Motors Inc. (D. Haw. 2021).
· cites it 2× “§ 437 - 28(a)(21)(C) and § 437-58(g) (“Count II”); 3) BYD’s sales efforts that violated the licensing provision of the Agreement also constitute violations of the MVILA (“Count III”); 4) a misrepresentation claim based upon BYD’s representation to industry members that BYD has…”
Soderholm Sales & Leasing, Inc. v. BYD Motors Inc. (D. Haw. 2021).
· cites it 2× “§ 437 - 28(a)(21)(C) and § 437-58(g) (“Count II”); 3) BYD’s sales efforts that violated the licensing provision of the Agreement also constitute violations of the MVILA (“Count III”); 4) a misrepresentation claim based upon BYD’s representation to industry members that BYD has…”
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.