ILCS » Chapter 815 · Act 710
Illinois Compiled Statutes

815 ILCS 710/1 (2026)

Short title

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(815 ILCS 710/1) (from Ch. 121 1/2, par. 751)
    Sec. 1. Short title. This Act may be cited as the Motor Vehicle Franchise Act.
(Source: P.A. 86-1475.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 54 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1993–2024 · leading case: Gen. Motors Corp. v. State of Illinois Motor Veh. Review Bd., 862 N.E.2d 209 (Ill. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Gen. Motors Corp. v. State of Illinois Motor Veh. Review Bd., 862 N.E.2d 209 (Ill. 2007). · cites it 4× “Various existing GMC dealerships challenged the newly proposed dealerships by filing a protest with the State of Illinois Motor Vehicle Review Board (Board) pursuant to the Motor Vehicle Franchise Act (Franchise Act or Act) (815 ILCS 710/1 et seq. (West 2004)), which allows an…”
Belleville Toyota, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 770 N.E.2d 177 (Ill. 2002). · cites it 2× “Plaintiff claimed that defendants breached certain dealership agreements by allocating to plaintiff less than the full number of Toyota vehicles to which plaintiff was entitled.”
People v. Luis R., 941 N.E.2d 136 (Ill. 2010). · cites it 2× “In Belleville Toyota , for example, the issue was whether compliance with the statutory limitations period is a jurisdictional prerequisite to asserting a claim under the Motor Vehicle Franchise Act (815 ILCS 710/1 et seq. (West 2000)). Belleville Toyota, 199 Ill.”
Clark Investments, Inc. v. Airstream, Inc., 926 N.E.2d 408 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). · cites it 4× “(Airstream), alleging that Airstream had violated the Illinois Motor Vehicle Franchise Act (815 ILCS 710/1 et seq. (West 2008)) (Franchise Act) and the Illinois Franchise Disclosure Act (815 ILCS 705/1 et seq.”
Feltmeier v. Feltmeier, 798 N.E.2d 75 (Ill. 2003). “There it was held that the continuing violation rule did not apply where the defendants’ misconduct in the allocation of vehicles to the plaintiff did not constitute “one, continuing, unbroken, decade-long violation” of the Motor Vehicle Franchise Act (Franchise Act) (815 ILCS…”
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. *760 In support of its first argument, defendant cites the Motor Vehicle Retail…”
Check v. Clifford Chrysler-Plymouth of Buffalo Grove, Inc., 794 N.E.2d 829 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003). · cites it 2× “Following a trial in the circuit court of Cook County, a jury found defendant: (1) not liable for an alleged violation of the Illinois Motor Vehicle Franchise Act (815 ILCS 710/1 et seq. (West 1996)); (2) liable for common law fraud; and (3) liable for breaching the implied…”
Gen. Motors Corp. v. Motor Veh. Review Bd., 836 N.E.2d 903 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). · cites it 2× “In February and March 2001, pursuant to the Motor Vehicle Franchise Act (815 ILCS 710/1 et seq. (West 2000)) ("Franchise Act"), General Motors notified its existing franchisees in the 10-mile relevant market area of its intention to grant the additional franchises.”
Crossroads Ford Truck Sales, Inc. v. Sterling Truck Corp., 2011 IL 111611 (Ill. 2011). “The claims alleged various violations of the Motor Vehicle Franchise Act (Act) (815 ILCS 710/1 et seq. (West 2010)) and claims of breach of contract, tortious interference with contract, and fraud.”
Tuf Racing Prods., Inc. v. Am. Suzuki Motor Corp., 223 F.3d 585 (7th Cir. 2000). “Tuf, a dealer in motorcycles in DeKalb, Illinois, in 1987 signed a franchise contract with Suzuki that the latter terminated in 1994, precipitating this diversity suit by Tuf under the Illinois Motor Vehicle Franchise Act, 815 ILCS 710/1 et seq. Although Tuf carried other brands…”
Postma v. Jack Brown Buick, Inc., 626 N.E.2d 199 (Ill. 1993). “Postma charged that by exercising that invalid right, and thereby causing Brown to declare his agreement with Postma to be at an end, General Motors was guilty of tortious interference with contract (count II), tortious interference with prospective business advantage (count…”
Feltmeier v. Feltmeier, 777 N.E.2d 1032 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002). · cites it 2× “, a dealership sued the importer and the wholesaler of new Toyota vehicles, claiming a breach of contract and a violation of the Motor Vehicle Franchise Act (815 ILCS 710/1 et seq. (West 2000)) for failing to allocate vehicles in contractually required quantities and for…”
Show all 54 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.