Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 445 / Act 118 of 1981
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1561 (2026)

Short title; Meanings of words and phrases.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

MOTOR VEHICLE FRANCHISE ACT


Act 118 of 1981


445.1561 Short title; Meanings of words and phrases.

Sec. 1.

    (1) This act shall be known and may be cited as the "motor vehicle franchise act".

    (2) For the purposes of this act, the words and phrases defined in sections 2 to 6 have the meanings ascribed to them in those sections, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning.

History: 1981, Act 118, Imd. Eff. July 19, 1981 ;-- Am. 2018, Act 668, Eff. Mar. 28, 2019

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1986–2023 · leading case: Chrysler Grp. LLC v. South Holland Dodge, Inc., 862 F. Supp. 2d 661 (E.D. Mich. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Chrysler Grp. LLC v. South Holland Dodge, Inc., 862 F. Supp. 2d 661 (E.D. Mich. 2012). · cites it 10× “), Michigan ( Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1561 et seq.), Nevada (Nev.”
Lafontaine Saline, Inc v. Chrysler Grp. LLC, 852 N.W.2d 78 (Mich. 2014). “1 MCL 445.1561 et seq. 2 Although the 2007 Dealer Agreement makes no reference to relevant market area, the parties do not dispute that some version of the MVDA applies to the 2007 Dealer Agreement.”
FCA US, LLC v. Spitzer Autoworld Akron, LLC, 887 F.3d 278 (6th Cir. 2018). “), Michigan ( Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1561 et seq. ), Nevada ( Nev.”
Ford Motor Co. v. Ghreiwati Auto, 945 F. Supp. 2d 851 (E.D. Mich. 2013). “) Defendants each have five claims against Ford: (1) breach of contract, the Global Importer Dealer Sales and Service Agreement (GIDSSA), that Defendants each entered into with Ford, (2) violation of the Michigan Dealer Act, Michigan Compiled Laws § 445.1561 et seq., (3) taking…”
Dale Baker Oldsmobile, Inc. v. Fiat Motors of North Am., Inc., 794 F.2d 213 (6th Cir. 1986). “In 1981 the Michigan Legislature replaced this statute with the Motor Vehicle Act, Mich.Comp.Laws § 445.1561, et seq. (1981 Act).”
Chrysler Grp. LLC v. Fox Hills Motor Sales, Inc., 776 F.3d 411 (6th Cir. 2015). “These are only one aspect of a whole range of regulations designed to protect the interests of auto dealerships and regulate the relationship between dealerships and manufacturers, as well as the sale of motor vehicles generally.”
McDonald Ford Sales, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 418 N.W.2d 716 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987). “Plaintiff, a Ford dealer, filed the instant declaratory judgment action in Oakland Circuit Court pursuant to § 16 of the Michigan motor vehicle dealers, distributors and manufacturers act, MCL 445.1561 et seq.; MSA 19.856(21) et seq.”
Fred Lavery Co. v. Nissan North Am., Inc., 99 F. App'x 585 (6th Cir. 2004). · cites it 2× “Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 445.1561 et seq.; (3) breach of contract; and (4) breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing.”
Mt. Clemens Auto Ctr., Inc. v. Hyundai Motor Am., 844 F. Supp. 2d 804 (E.D. Mich. 2011). · cites it 2× “The dispute in this case boils down to the interpretation of language in the Michigan Motor Vehicle Dealer Act, Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 445.1561 et seq., which sets forth the minimum advance notice an automobile manufacturer must give its dealer before terminating a franchise…”
Ransomes Am. Corp. v. Spartan Distributors, Inc., 914 F. Supp. 183 (W.D. Mich. 1996). “§ 445.1561 et seq., in that it was not based upon good cause and was not attended by proper notice.”
Pung v. Gen. Motors Corp., 573 N.W.2d 80 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). “§ 445.1561 et seq.; M.S.A. § 19.856(21) et seq.”
LaFontaine Saline Inc. v. Chrysler Grp. LLC, 828 N.W.2d 446 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). “1576(3), a subsection of the motor vehicle dealers act (MVDA), MCL 445.1561 et seq., seeking an order prohibiting Chrysler from adding the Dodge vehicle line at IHS, a Chrysler dealer located within the amended definition of “relevant market area” contained in the MVDA.”
Show all 20 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.