Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 10, § 1173 (2026)

Attorney General and civil remedies

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

1. Civil remedies. Any franchisee or motor vehicle dealer who suffers financial loss of money or property, real or personal, or who has been otherwise adversely affected as a result of the use or employment by a franchisor of an unfair method of competition or an unfair or deceptive act or any practice declared unlawful by this chapter may bring an action for damages and equitable relief, including injunctive relief. When the franchisee or dealer prevails, the court shall award attorney's fees to the franchisee or dealer, regardless of the amount in controversy, and assess costs against the opposing party. For the purpose of the award of attorney's 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 or other final order providing equitable relief is entered in its favor. A final judgment, order or decree rendered against a person in any civil, criminal or administrative proceeding under the United States antitrust laws, under the Federal Trade Commission Act, under the Maine Revised Statutes or under this chapter is regarded as prima facie evidence against the person subject to the conditions set forth in the United States antitrust laws, 15 United States Code, Section 16.

[PL 1997, c. 521, §6 (AMD).]

SECTION HISTORY

PL 1975, c. 573 (NEW). PL 1997, c. 521, §6 (AMD).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2000–2022 · leading case: Ford Motor Co. v. Darling's, 2016 ME 171 (Me. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Ford Motor Co. v. Darling's, 2016 ME 171 (Me. 2016). · cites it 3× “Statutory Framework and Arguments on Appeal [¶ 19] Title 10 M.R.S. § 1173 creates a private cause of action for dealers seeking *514 damages when a manufacturer engages in certain unfair and deceptive trade practices.”

Ford Motor Co. v. Darling's, 2014 ME 7 (Me. 2014). “§ 152(2) (2013) (establishing the District Court's original jurisdiction as being concurrent with that of the Superior Court over "all civil actions when no equitable relief is demanded, except those actions for which exclusive jurisdiction is vested in the Superior Court by…”

Darling's v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 57 F. Supp. 3d 68 (D. Me. 2014). · cites it 2× “10 M.R.S. § 1173. The claim will proceed there unless the adverse party exercises its right to file a separate complaint with the Maine Franchise Board and temporarily stay the state court action.”

Darling's v. Nissan North Am., Inc., 117 F. Supp. 2d 54 (D. Me. 2000). “§ 1174(3)(B) finding that the imposition of an exclusivity requirement is an attempt to coerce Plaintiff to modify the franchise, an unfair method of competition and an unfair and deceptive practice, and enjoining Defendant from making such an attempt to coerce, and (3) an award…”

Chrysler Grp., LLC v. Dunlap (Me. Super. Ct 2016). · cites it 4× “) The Board rejected Chrysler's argument that the law does not entitle Darling's to fees or costs explaining that Darling's prevailed in its action under section 1171-B(3) and, as a result, is entitled to recover its attorney fees under 10 M.R.S.A. § 1173. (R. 2714-2715.) The…”

Ford Motor Co. v. Darling's (Me. Super. Ct 2022). “In the absence of a specific 3 Title 10 M.R.S. § 1173(1) (2011) simply allows a "franchisee or motor vehicle dealer who suffers financial loss of money or property, real or personal, or who has otherwise adversely affected as a result of .”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 10, § 1173(1) — 2 cases

Ford Motor Co. v. Darling's, 2014 ME 7 (Me. 2014). “§ 152(2) (2013) (establishing the District Court's original jurisdiction as being concurrent with that of the Superior Court over "all civil actions when no equitable relief is demanded, except those actions for which exclusive jurisdiction is vested in the Superior Court by…”

Ford Motor Co. v. Darling's (Me. Super. Ct 2022). “In the absence of a specific 3 Title 10 M.R.S. § 1173(1) (2011) simply allows a "franchisee or motor vehicle dealer who suffers financial loss of money or property, real or personal, or who has otherwise adversely affected as a result of .”

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.