Iowa Code » Chapter 322A — MOTOR VEHICLE FRANCHISERS

Iowa Code § 322A.2

Discontinuing franchise

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IA-LEGlegis.iowa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

1. Unless otherwise provided in subsection 2, notwithstanding the terms, provisions, or conditions of any agreement or franchise, a franchiser shall not terminate or refuse to continue any franchise unless the franchiser has first established, in a hearing held under the provisions of this chapter, that both of the following apply: a. The franchiser has good cause for termination or noncontinuance. b. Upon termination or noncontinuance, another franchise in the same line-make will become effective in the same community, without diminution of the motor vehicle service formerly provided, or that the community cannot be reasonably expected to support such a dealership. 2. A franchiser may terminate a franchise for a particular line-make if the franchiser discontinues that line-make and a franchiser may terminate a franchise if the franchisee’s license as a motor vehicle dealer is revoked pursuant to the provisions of chapter 322. [C71, 73, 75, 77, 79, 81, §322A.2] 2010 Acts, ch 1069, §110 Referred to in §322A.22

\n
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1978–2022 · leading case: New Motor Vehicle Bd. of Cal. v. Orrin W. Fox Co.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
New Motor Vehicle Bd. of Cal. v. Orrin W. Fox Co. (1978) scotus · cites it 2× “(1967); Iowa Code § 322A.2 (1977); Md. Transp. Code Ann.”
Midwest Automotive III, LLC v. Iowa Department of Transportation (2002) iowa · cites it 2× “See Iowa Code § 322A.2(1) (1999). In section 322A.”
Craig Foster Ford, Inc. v. Iowa Department of Transportation (1997) iowa “Upon termination or noncontinuance, another franchise in the same line-make will become effective in the same community, without diminution of the motor vehicle service formerly “provided [[Image here]] Iowa Code § 322A.2 (emphasis added). The franchiser carries the burden of…”
Buckwalter Motors, Inc. v. General Motors Corp. (1984) iasd “See Iowa Code §§ 322A.2, .11 (1983). This Court believes that § 322A.”
Colonial Chevrolet Co., Inc. v. United States (2019) uscfc “” Iowa Code Ann. § 322A.2(1) (West 2009). Iowa state law further provides that “[u]pon hearing, the franchiser shall have the burden of proof to establish that under the provisions of this chapter the franchiser should be granted permission to terminate or not continue the…”
Colonial Chevrolet Co., Inc. v. United States (2019) uscfc “” Iowa Code Ann. § 322A.2(1) (West 2009). Iowa state law further provides that “[u]pon hearing, the franchiser shall have the burden of proof to establish that under the provisions of this chapter the franchiser should be granted permission to terminate or not continue the…”
Sioux City Truck Sales, Inc. v. Iowa Department of Transportation and Peterbilt Motors Company, and Allstate Peterbilt o (2022) iowa “3A, or choosing not to renew its franchise with Sioux City Truck, see Iowa Code § 322A.2. Peterbilt should not now be permitted to avoid its contracted-for obligations and the clear policy decision made by the legislature.”
— Iowa Code § 322A.2(1) — 3 cases
Midwest Automotive III, LLC v. Iowa Department of Transportation (2002) iowa “See Iowa Code § 322A.2(1) (1999). In section 322A.”
Colonial Chevrolet Co., Inc. v. United States (2019) uscfc “” Iowa Code Ann. § 322A.2(1) (West 2009). Iowa state law further provides that “[u]pon hearing, the franchiser shall have the burden of proof to establish that under the provisions of this chapter the franchiser should be granted permission to terminate or not continue the…”
Colonial Chevrolet Co., Inc. v. United States (2019) uscfc “” Iowa Code Ann. § 322A.2(1) (West 2009). Iowa state law further provides that “[u]pon hearing, the franchiser shall have the burden of proof to establish that under the provisions of this chapter the franchiser should be granted permission to terminate or not continue the…”
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.