Louisiana Revised Statutes & Codes
La. Rev. Stat. § 32:1254 (2026)
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
LA-LEGlegis.la.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
§1254. Application for license; requirements for licensure; contents; licenses; franchise filings; exceptions
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1958–2023 · leading case: Benson & Gold Chev. v. La. Motor Veh. Com'n, 403 So. 2d 13 (La. 1981).
Benson & Gold Chev. v. La. Motor Veh. Com'n, 403 So. 2d 13 (La. 1981). “The heart of the regulatory scheme is contained in R.S. 32:1254, which requires all automobile dealers to be licensed by the M.”
Marler Ford Co., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 885 So. 2d 654 (La. Ct. App. 2004). “R.S. 32:1254 by insufficiently reimbursing Marler for warranty work and by threatening to impose a surcharge on vehicles sold in Louisiana.”
Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Lively-Culpepper Chevrolet Oldsmobile, Inc., 609 So. 2d 1055 (La. Ct. App. 1992). “One of the specific statutes that the legislature passed to regulate the automobile sales industry is LSA-R.S. 32:1254, supra. This statute requires that before a motor vehicle dealer receives a license, said dealer must post a fidelity bond in the sum of $20,000.”
Chrysler Credit Corp. v. US Fid. & Guar. Co., 543 So. 2d 642 (La. Ct. App. 1989). “Therefore, the sole issue before the court is whether a motor vehicle dealer fidelity bond (under LSA-R.S. 32:1254 M.) provides indemnity to a financial institution when funds belonging to said financial institution are tortiously converted by the owner of the dealership in…”
Ray Brandt Nissan, Inc. v. Gurvich, 726 So. 2d 474 (La. Ct. App. 1999). “When the plaintiff was unable to obtain financing for the defendant through its primary lender, it sought to recover the vehicle pursuant to LSA-R.S. 32:1254(N)(3)(f), maintaining that the sale was conditioned upon financing.”
Hargrove v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 780 So. 2d 454 (La. Ct. App. 2001). “R.S. 32:1254 provides, in part: C.(1) Applications for license as motor vehicle dealer must, in addition to the foregoing, also be accompanied by the filing with the commission of a bona fide contract or franchise in effect between the applicant and a manufacturer or distributor…”
Nissan North Am., Inc. v. ROYAL NISSAN, INC., 794 So. 2d 45 (La. Ct. App. 2001). “R.S. 32:1254(F). Dealers may relocate, subject to approval by the manufacturer and the Commission, within their own territories, and the dealers are denied the right of protest when located more than five miles from the proposed relocation site.”
Citizens Bank & Trust Co. v. Little Ford, Inc., 522 So. 2d 1124 (La. Ct. App. 1988). “a dealer in any type of new and unused motor vehicle or motor drawn vehicle for which a dealer's license is not required under R.S. 32:1254. It is clear from a reading of the Vehicle Certificate of Title Law that the Legislature intended only for licensed dealers to conduct the…”
Kelley Blue Book Co. v. Louisiana Motor Veh. Comm'n, 204 So. 3d 1139 (La. Ct. App. 2016). “) In this notice, the Commission alleged that KBB “violated the following sections of the Louisiana Motor Vehicle Commission Law and its Rules and Regulations:” Louisiana Revised Statutes LSA-R.S. 32:1254(N). Any person who sells or offers to sell new motor vehicles,…”
Louisiana Motor Veh. Com'n v. WHEELING FRENCH., 103 So. 2d 464 (La. 1958). “R.S. 32:1254 pertains to unauthorized acts of the persons affected by the legislation and further provides for application to be made to .”
Nissan Motor Corp. in U.S.A. v. Royal Nissan, Inc., 757 F. Supp. 736 (E.D. La. 1991). “On January 4, 1991, Royal and Diamond filed a complaint with the Commission alleging that the new dealership sought by Nissan would constitute an “act unfair” to the dealers and a partial cancellation of the dealer agreements in violation of Louisiana Revised Statutes section…”
SALES 360 v. Louisiana Motor Veh. Com'n, 976 So. 2d 188 (La. Ct. App. 2007). “ture finds and declares that the distribution and sale of motor vehicles in the state of Louisiana vitally affects the general economy of the state, the public interest, and the public welfare, and that in order to promote the public interest, and the public welfare, and in the…”
— La. Rev. Stat. § 32:1254(A) — 3 cases
Benson & Gold Chev. v. La. Motor Veh. Com'n, 403 So. 2d 13 (La. 1981). “The heart of the regulatory scheme is contained in R.S. 32:1254, which requires all automobile dealers to be licensed by the M.”
Elio Motors, Inc. v. La. Motor Veh. Comm'n, 268 So. 3d 1132 (La. Ct. App. 2019).
Elio Motors, Inc. v. La. Motor Veh. Comm'n, 268 So. 3d 1132 (La. Ct. App. 2019).
— La. Rev. Stat. § 32:1254(A)(1) — 2 cases
Elio Motors, Inc. v. La. Motor Veh. Comm'n, 268 So. 3d 1132 (La. Ct. App. 2019).
Elio Motors, Inc. v. La. Motor Veh. Comm'n, 268 So. 3d 1132 (La. Ct. App. 2019).
— La. Rev. Stat. § 32:1254(A)(4)(c) — 1 case
Benson & Gold Chev. v. La. Motor Veh. Com'n, 403 So. 2d 13 (La. 1981). “The heart of the regulatory scheme is contained in R.S. 32:1254, which requires all automobile dealers to be licensed by the M.”
— La. Rev. Stat. § 32:1254(B) — 1 case
Benson & Gold Chev. v. La. Motor Veh. Com'n, 403 So. 2d 13 (La. 1981). “The heart of the regulatory scheme is contained in R.S. 32:1254, which requires all automobile dealers to be licensed by the M.”
— La. Rev. Stat. § 32:1254(C) — 1 case
Benson & Gold Chev. v. La. Motor Veh. Com'n, 403 So. 2d 13 (La. 1981). “The heart of the regulatory scheme is contained in R.S. 32:1254, which requires all automobile dealers to be licensed by the M.”
— La. Rev. Stat. § 32:1254(C)(2) — 2 cases
Elio Motors, Inc. v. La. Motor Veh. Comm'n, 268 So. 3d 1132 (La. Ct. App. 2019).
Elio Motors, Inc. v. La. Motor Veh. Comm'n, 268 So. 3d 1132 (La. Ct. App. 2019).
— La. Rev. Stat. § 32:1254(E) — 2 cases
Benson & Gold Chev. v. La. Motor Veh. Com'n, 403 So. 2d 13 (La. 1981). “The heart of the regulatory scheme is contained in R.S. 32:1254, which requires all automobile dealers to be licensed by the M.”
Yokem Toyota, Inc. v. Louisiana Motor Veh. Comm'n, 589 So. 2d 1192 (La. Ct. App. 1991).
— La. Rev. Stat. § 32:1254(F) — 1 case
Nissan North Am., Inc. v. ROYAL NISSAN, INC., 794 So. 2d 45 (La. Ct. App. 2001). “R.S. 32:1254(F). Dealers may relocate, subject to approval by the manufacturer and the Commission, within their own territories, and the dealers are denied the right of protest when located more than five miles from the proposed relocation site.”
— La. Rev. Stat. § 32:1254(F)(1) — 1 case
Royal Nissan, Inc. v. Louisiana Motor Veh. Comm'n, 636 So. 2d 1124 (La. Ct. App. 1994).
— La. Rev. Stat. § 32:1254(F)(2) — 1 case
Yokem Toyota, Inc. v. Louisiana Motor Veh. Comm'n, 589 So. 2d 1192 (La. Ct. App. 1991).
— La. Rev. Stat. § 32:1254(F)(3) — 1 case
Yokem Toyota, Inc. v. Louisiana Motor Veh. Comm'n, 589 So. 2d 1192 (La. Ct. App. 1991).
— La. Rev. Stat. § 32:1254(M)(3) — 1 case
Price v. Piotrowski, 632 So. 2d 1 (La. Ct. App. 1994).
— La. Rev. Stat. § 32:1254(M)(4) — 1 case
Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Lively-Culpepper Chevrolet Oldsmobile, Inc., 609 So. 2d 1055 (La. Ct. App. 1992). “One of the specific statutes that the legislature passed to regulate the automobile sales industry is LSA-R.S. 32:1254, supra. This statute requires that before a motor vehicle dealer receives a license, said dealer must post a fidelity bond in the sum of $20,000.”
— La. Rev. Stat. § 32:1254(N) — 2 cases
Kelley Blue Book Co. v. Louisiana Motor Veh. Comm'n, 204 So. 3d 1139 (La. Ct. App. 2016). “) In this notice, the Commission alleged that KBB “violated the following sections of the Louisiana Motor Vehicle Commission Law and its Rules and Regulations:” Louisiana Revised Statutes LSA-R.S. 32:1254(N). Any person who sells or offers to sell new motor vehicles,…”
SALES 360 v. Louisiana Motor Veh. Com'n, 976 So. 2d 188 (La. Ct. App. 2007). “ture finds and declares that the distribution and sale of motor vehicles in the state of Louisiana vitally affects the general economy of the state, the public interest, and the public welfare, and that in order to promote the public interest, and the public welfare, and in the…”
— La. Rev. Stat. § 32:1254(N)(3)(f) — 1 case
Ray Brandt Nissan, Inc. v. Gurvich, 726 So. 2d 474 (La. Ct. App. 1999). “When the plaintiff was unable to obtain financing for the defendant through its primary lender, it sought to recover the vehicle pursuant to LSA-R.S. 32:1254(N)(3)(f), maintaining that the sale was conditioned upon financing.”
— La. Rev. Stat. § 32:1254(N)(6) — 1 case
Marler Ford Co., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 885 So. 2d 654 (La. Ct. App. 2004). “R.S. 32:1254 by insufficiently reimbursing Marler for warranty work and by threatening to impose a surcharge on vehicles sold in Louisiana.”
— La. Rev. Stat. § 32:1254(N)(6)(0) — 1 case
Marler Ford Co., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 885 So. 2d 654 (La. Ct. App. 2004). “R.S. 32:1254 by insufficiently reimbursing Marler for warranty work and by threatening to impose a surcharge on vehicles sold in Louisiana.”
— La. Rev. Stat. § 32:1254(N)(6)(b) — 2 cases
Marler Ford Co., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 885 So. 2d 654 (La. Ct. App. 2004). “R.S. 32:1254 by insufficiently reimbursing Marler for warranty work and by threatening to impose a surcharge on vehicles sold in Louisiana.”
Nissan Motor Corp. in U.S.A. v. Royal Nissan, Inc., 757 F. Supp. 736 (E.D. La. 1991). “On January 4, 1991, Royal and Diamond filed a complaint with the Commission alleging that the new dealership sought by Nissan would constitute an “act unfair” to the dealers and a partial cancellation of the dealer agreements in violation of Louisiana Revised Statutes section…”
— La. Rev. Stat. § 32:1254(N)(6)(c) — 1 case
Volvo Trucks North Am., Inc. v. State, 886 So. 2d 556 (La. Ct. App. 2004).
— La. Rev. Stat. § 32:1254(N)(6)(f) — 1 case
Marler Ford Co., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 885 So. 2d 654 (La. Ct. App. 2004). “R.S. 32:1254 by insufficiently reimbursing Marler for warranty work and by threatening to impose a surcharge on vehicles sold in Louisiana.”
— La. Rev. Stat. § 32:1254(N)(6)(m) — 1 case
Yokem Toyota, Inc. v. Louisiana Motor Veh. Comm'n, 589 So. 2d 1192 (La. Ct. App. 1991).
— La. Rev. Stat. § 32:1254(R) — 1 case
Nissan North Am., Inc. v. ROYAL NISSAN, INC., 794 So. 2d 45 (La. Ct. App. 2001). “R.S. 32:1254(F). Dealers may relocate, subject to approval by the manufacturer and the Commission, within their own territories, and the dealers are denied the right of protest when located more than five miles from the proposed relocation site.”
— La. Rev. Stat. § 32:1254(S) — 1 case
Nissan North Am., Inc. v. ROYAL NISSAN, INC., 794 So. 2d 45 (La. Ct. App. 2001). “R.S. 32:1254(F). Dealers may relocate, subject to approval by the manufacturer and the Commission, within their own territories, and the dealers are denied the right of protest when located more than five miles from the proposed relocation site.”
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.