ILCS » Chapter 815 · Act 375
Illinois Compiled Statutes

815 ILCS 375/1 (2026)

This Act may be cited as the Motor Vehicle Retail Installment Sales Act

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(815 ILCS 375/1) (from Ch. 121 1/2, par. 561)
    Sec. 1. This Act may be cited as the Motor Vehicle Retail Installment Sales Act.
(Source: Laws 1967, p. 2163.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1994–2025 · leading case: Fandel v. Allen, 937 N.E.2d 1124 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Fandel v. Allen, 937 N.E.2d 1124 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). · cites it 6× “Instead, the defendants in Muncy filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint, asserting that plaintiff was precluded from enforcing a contract because it did not meet the requirements of the Sales Act (815 ILCS 375/1 et seq. (West 2006)). It is on this basis that we find…”
Jackson v. South Holland Dodge, Inc., 755 N.E.2d 462 (Ill. 2001). · cites it 2× “The plaintiff's amended complaint alleges that Chrysler's conduct violated the Motor Vehicle Retail Installment Sales Act (815 ILCS 375/1 et seq. (West 1994)). Unlike the strict disclosure requirements of TILA, however, the Motor Vehicle Retail Installment Sales Act requires, in…”
People v. Wright, 740 N.E.2d 755 (Ill. 2000). · cites it 2× “(West 1998)); the Motor Vehicle Retail Installment Sales Act (815 ILCS 375/1 et seq. (West 1998)); the Interest Act (815 ILCS 205/0.”
Allen v. Woodfield Chevrolet, Inc., 802 N.E.2d 752 (Ill. 2003). · cites it 2× “Defendant also argues that the legislature perceived a problem specific to vehicle dealers which separates them from all other retailers, thus justifying different treatment under the Act.”
Guinn v. Hoskins Chevrolet, 836 N.E.2d 681 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). “(2002)), and/or the Illinois Motor Vehicle Retail Installment Sales Act (815 ILCS 375/1 et seq. (West 2002)), i.e.”
Barnes v. Nw. Repossession, LLC, 210 F. Supp. 3d 954 (N.D. Ill. 2016). “3, including the Illinois Motor Vehicle Retail Installment Sales Act (“IMVRISA”), 815 ILCS 375/1, et seq. Id. at 5/9-201(b)(2).”
Grimaldi v. Webb, 668 N.E.2d 39 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996). “Plaintiff alleged that amounts disbursed to others on behalf of the consumer are required to be furnished to a retail buyer under the Motor Vehicle Retail Installment Sales Act (815 ILCS 375/1 et seq. (West 1992)), and that Packey Webb misrepresented this amount on the retail…”
Schorsch v. Fireside Chrysler-Plymouth, Mazda, Inc., 677 N.E.2d 976 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997). “(Fireside), appeals the trial court’s award of attorney fees to plaintiff, Deborah Schorsch, following a finding of liability based on Schorsch’s claims for conversion, violation of the Motor Vehicle Retail Installment Sales Act (Motor Vehicle Act) (815 ILCS 375/1 et seq. (West…”
First Chicago Gary-Wheaton Bank v. Gaughan, 655 N.E.2d 936 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995). “Plaintiff admitted that it did not comply with the notice provisions of the Motor Vehicle Retail Installment Sales Act (the Sales Act) (815 ILCS 375/1 et seq. (West 1992)). Plaintiff failed to inform defendant, within three days of the repossession, of his right to cure any…”
Taylor v. Trans Acceptance Corp., 641 N.E.2d 907 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994). “The complaint alleged that an automobile retail installment contract, cosigned by plaintiffs as buyers and assigned to defendants, was a violation of section 18 of the Motor Vehicle Retail Installment Sales Act (815 ILCS 375/1 et seq. (West 1992)) (MVRISA), which warranted…”
Jackson v. South Holland Dodge, Inc., 726 N.E.2d 1146 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000). “Furthermore, CFC said, because it never made any representations directly to Jackson, Jackson would not be able to prove CFC violated the Motor Vehicle Retail Installment Sales Act (815 ILCS 375/1 et seq. (West 1996)) and, therefore, there was no liability under the Fraud Act or…”
Route 50 Auto Sales, Inc. v. Muncy, 771 N.E.2d 635 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002). “Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, asserting that plaintiff was precluded from enforcing the contract because it did not meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicle Retail Installment Sales Act (Act) (815 ILCS 375/1 et seq. (West 1998)). The trial court denied…”
Show all 26 citing cases →
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.