Illinois Compiled Statutes
815 ILCS 710/13 (2026)
Damages; equitable relief
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IL-ILGAilga.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(815 ILCS 710/13)
(from Ch. 121 1/2, par. 763)
Sec. 13.
Damages; equitable relief.
Any franchisee or motor vehicle dealer
who suffers any loss of money or property, real or personal, as a result of
the use or employment by a manufacturer, wholesaler, distributor, distributor
branch or division, factory branch or division, wholesale branch or division,
or any agent, servant or employee thereof, of an unfair method of competition
or an unfair or deceptive act or practice declared unlawful by this Act,
or any action in violation of this Act,
may bring an action for damages and equitable relief, including injunctive
relief, in the circuit court of the county in which the objecting franchisee
has its principal place of business or, if the parties have so agreed, in
arbitration. If the misconduct is willful or wanton, treble damages may be
awarded. A motor vehicle dealer, if it has not suffered any loss
of money or property, may obtain permanent equitable relief if it can be shown
that the unfair act or practice may have the effect of causing such loss
of money or property. Where the franchisee or dealer substantially
prevails the court or arbitration panel or Motor Vehicle Review Board
shall award attorney's fees and assess costs, including expert witness fees
and other expenses incurred by the dealer in the litigation, so long as such
fees and costs are reasonable, against the opposing
party. Moreover, for the purposes of the award of attorney's fees, expert
witness fees, and costs
whenever the franchisee or dealer is seeking injunctive or other relief, the
franchisee or dealer may be considered to have prevailed when a judgment is
entered in its favor, when a final administrative decision is entered in its
favor and affirmed, if subject to judicial review, when a consent order is
entered into, or when the manufacturer, distributor, wholesaler, distributor
branch or division, factory branch or division, wholesale branch
or division, or
any officer, agent or other representative thereof ceases the conduct, act or
practice which is alleged to be in violation of any Section of this Act.
The changes to this Section made by this amendatory Act of the
92nd General Assembly (i) apply only to causes of action accruing on or
after its effective date and (ii) are intended to provide only an additional
venue for dispute resolution without changing any substantive rights under this
Act.
(Source: P.A. 91-485, eff. 1-1-00; 91-533, eff. 8-13-99; 92-272, eff. 1-1-02.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases, 1993–2011 · leading case: Belleville Toyota, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 770 N.E.2d 177 (Ill. 2002).
Belleville Toyota, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 770 N.E.2d 177 (Ill. 2002). “See 815 ILCS 710/13 (West 2000) ("Where the misconduct is willful or wanton, the court may award treble damages").”
Gen. Motors Corp. v. Motor Veh. Review Bd., 836 N.E.2d 903 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). “770(c)(6) of Title 92 of the Illinois Administrative Code (92 Ill. Adm.Code § 1001.770(c)(6) (Conway Greene CD-ROM April 2001)), and (3) section 13 of the Franchise Act is unconstitutional on its face and as applied in this case.”
Clark Investments, Inc. v. Airstream, Inc., 926 N.E.2d 408 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). “" Section 13 of the Franchise Act allows "[a]ny franchisee or motor vehicle dealer who suffers any loss of money or property, real or personal, as a result of the use or employment by a manufacturer, wholesaler, distributor, * * * or any agent, servant or employee thereof, of an…”
Tuf Racing Prods., Inc. v. Am. Suzuki Motor Corp., 223 F.3d 585 (7th Cir. 2000). “A jury agreed that the termination had been wrongful but awarded Tuf only $137,000, to which, however, the judge added $391,318 in attorneys’ fees under the franchise act’s fee-shifting provision, 815 ILCS 710/13, which requires such an award if the plaintiff “substantially…”
In re Marriage of Murphy, 763 N.E.2d 933 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002). “iling Parties"--Illinois Law The following Illinois statutes allow for attorney fee awards to "substantially prevailing" parties: (1) section 11(i) of Illinois' Freedom of Information Act (Illinois FOIA) (5 ILCS 140/11(i) (West 2000)); (2) section 3(d) of the Open Meetings Act…”
Postma v. Jack Brown Buick, Inc., 626 N.E.2d 199 (Ill. 1993). “” (815 ILCS 710/13 (West 1992).) It is true that the courts of this State have held that the normal rules of equity requiring a showing of a lack of an adequate remedy at law and irreparable injury do not apply where a statute expressly authorizes injunctive relief.”
Crossroads Ford Truck v. Sterling Truck, 959 N.E.2d 1133 (Ill. 2011). “" 815 ILCS 710/13 (West 2010). ¶ 35 1. Original Jurisdiction to Determine Good Cause Under Section 4(d)(6) ¶ 36 The first argument advanced by plaintiff is that the circuit court has jurisdiction to determine good cause under section 4(d)(6) of the Act.”
Crossroads Ford Truck Sales v. Sterling Truck Corp., 943 N.E.2d 646 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). “Crossroads argues section 13 of the Franchise Act (815 ILCS 710/13 (West 2008)) allows a dealer to file any action in the circuit court, including an action for damages under section 4(d)(6).”
Hamilton v. Chrysler Corp., 666 N.E.2d 758 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996). “On August 2, 1994, the plaintiff filed a petition for an award of attorney fees and costs pursuant to section 13 of the MVFA (see 815 ILCS 710/13 (West 1994)). Thereafter, Chrysler filed its post-trial motion requesting the entry of a judgment notwithstanding the verdict in…”
Gen. Motors Corp. v. State of Illinois Motor Veh. Review Bd. (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). “Specifically, they assert (1) section 13 of the Franchise Act (815 ILCS 710/13 (West 2000)) does not provide for an award of attorney fees in this case, (2) the hearing officer failed to advise them of the possibility of an award of attorney fees as required by section…”
Belleville Toyota, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. (Ill. 2002). “See 815 ILCS 710/13 (West 2000) (“Where the misconduct is willful or wanton, the court may award treble damages”).”
Clark Investments v. Airstream (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). “Attached to the summary judgment pleadings were various depositions, affidavits, and financial documents (the supporting documents).”
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.
|