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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1566 (2026)

Definitions; R to U.

✓ 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


445.1566 Definitions; R to U.

Sec. 6.

    (1) "Relevant market area" means 1 of the following:

    (a) In a county that has a population of more than 150,000, the area within a radius of 9 miles of the site of the intended place of business of a proposed new vehicle dealer or the intended place of business of a new vehicle dealer that plans to relocate its place of business. For purposes of this section, the 9-mile distance is determined by measuring the distance between the nearest surveyed boundary of an existing new motor vehicle dealer's principal place of business and the nearest surveyed boundary line of the proposed or relocated new motor vehicle dealer's principal place of business.

    (b) In a county that has a population of 150,000 or fewer, the area within a radius of 15 miles of the site of the intended place of business of a proposed new vehicle dealer or the intended place of business of a new vehicle dealer that plans to relocate its place of business. For purposes of this section, the 15-mile distance is determined by measuring the distance between the nearest surveyed boundary line of an existing new motor vehicle dealer's principal place of business and the nearest surveyed boundary line of the proposed or relocated new motor vehicle dealer's principal place of business.

    (2) "Stop-sale order" means a notification issued by a manufacturer to its franchised new motor vehicle dealers stating that certain used vehicles in inventory shall not be driven, sold, or leased, at either retail or wholesale, due to a federal safety recall or manufacturer issued recall for a defect or a noncompliance, or a federal emissions recall.

    (3) "Successor manufacturer" means a manufacturer that acquires, succeeds to, or assumes any part of the business of another manufacturer as the result of any of the following:

    (a) A change in ownership, operation, or control of a predecessor manufacturer by sale or transfer of assets, corporate stock, or other equity interest, assignment, merger, consolidation, combination, joint venture, redemption, court-approved sale, operation of law, or any other means.

    (b) Termination, suspension, or cessation of a part or all of the business operations of a predecessor manufacturer.

    (c) Discontinuance of the sale of a product line.

    (d) A change in distribution system by a predecessor manufacturer, whether through a change in distributor or the predecessor manufacturer's decision to cease conducting any business through a particular distributor.

    (4) "Used motor vehicle" means a motor vehicle that is not a new motor vehicle.

    (5) "Used motor vehicle dealer" means a person that is engaged in the business of purchasing, selling, exchanging, or dealing in used motor vehicles and that has an established place of business in this state at which it conducts that business. The term does not include a new motor vehicle dealer purchasing, selling, exchanging, or dealing in used motor vehicles as part of its business of purchasing, selling, exchanging, or dealing in new motor vehicles.

History: 1981, Act 118, Imd. Eff. July 19, 1981 ;-- Am. 1983, Act 188, Imd. Eff. Nov. 1, 1983 ;-- Am. 2010, Act 139, Imd. Eff. Aug. 4, 2010 ;-- Am. 2018, Act 668, Eff. Mar. 28, 2019

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases, 1986–2015 · leading case: Lafontaine Saline, Inc v. Chrysler Grp. LLC, 496 Mich. 26 (Mich. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lafontaine Saline, Inc v. Chrysler Grp. LLC, 496 Mich. 26 (Mich. 2014). · cites it 8× “31 The Legislature’s silence regarding retroactivity in its amendment of the definition of “relevant market area” undermines any argument that MCL 445.1566 was intended to apply retroactively.”
Chrysler Grp. LLC v. South Holland Dodge, Inc., 862 F. Supp. 2d 661 (E.D. Mich. 2012). · cites it 2× “See Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1566 & § 445.1576.”
Chrysler Grp. LLC v. Fox Hills Motor Sales, Inc., 776 F.3d 411 (6th Cir. 2015). “Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1566 (1). In Nevada, it is an area within a 10-mile radius of an existing dealer that sells vehicles of the same line and make.”
McDonald Ford Sales, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 418 N.W.2d 716 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987). “, its "relevant market area,” see MCL 445.1566; MSA 19.856[26]) may seek a declaratory ruling as to whether good cause exists for the establishment or relocation of the new motor vehicle dealer.”
Andy Mohr West, Inc. v. Off. of the Indiana Sec'y of State, 41 N.E.3d 704 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). “” Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 445.1566 (4). See also W.”
LaFontaine Saline Inc. v. Chrysler Grp. LLC, 828 N.W.2d 446 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 4× “” MCL 445.1566(a), as amended by 1983 PA 188 .”
Century Dodge, Inc. v. Chrysler Corp., 398 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986). “” MCL 445.1566; MSA 19.856(26) defines "relevant market area” as the area within a radius of 6 miles of the intended site of the proposed or relocated dealer.”
Lafontaine Saline Inc v. Chrysler Grp. LLC (Mich. 2013). “The parties shall address whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the 2010 PA 139 definition of “relevant market area,” MCL 445.1566(1)(a), applied to enable the plaintiff to challenge the future dealer agreement between the defendants under MCL 445.”
Lafontaine Saline Inc v. Chrysler Grp. LLC (Mich. 2013). “The parties shall address whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the 2010 PA 139 definition of “relevant market area,” MCL 445.1566(1)(a), applied to enable the plaintiff to challenge the future dealer agreement between the defendants under MCL 445.”
Lafontaine Saline Inc v. Chrysler Grp. LLC (Mich. 2013). “The parties shall address whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the 2010 PA 139 definition of “relevant market area,” MCL 445.1566(1)(a), applied to enable the plaintiff to challenge the future dealer agreement between the defendants under MCL 445.”
Lafontaine Saline Inc v. Chrysler Grp. LLC (Mich. 2013). “The parties shall address whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the 2010 PA 139 definition of “relevant market area,” MCL 445.1566(1)(a), applied to enable the plaintiff to challenge the future dealer agreement between the defendants under MCL 445.”
Lafontaine Saline Inc v. Chrysler Grp. LLC (Mich. 2013). “The parties shall address whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the 2010 PA 139 definition of “relevant market area,” MCL 445.1566(1)(a), applied to enable the plaintiff to challenge the future dealer agreement between the defendants under MCL 445.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1566(1) — 1 case
Lafontaine Saline, Inc v. Chrysler Grp. LLC, 496 Mich. 26 (Mich. 2014). “31 The Legislature’s silence regarding retroactivity in its amendment of the definition of “relevant market area” undermines any argument that MCL 445.1566 was intended to apply retroactively.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1566(1)(a) — 6 cases
Lafontaine Saline Inc v. Chrysler Grp. LLC (Mich. 2013). “The parties shall address whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the 2010 PA 139 definition of “relevant market area,” MCL 445.1566(1)(a), applied to enable the plaintiff to challenge the future dealer agreement between the defendants under MCL 445.”
Lafontaine Saline Inc v. Chrysler Grp. LLC (Mich. 2013). “The parties shall address whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the 2010 PA 139 definition of “relevant market area,” MCL 445.1566(1)(a), applied to enable the plaintiff to challenge the future dealer agreement between the defendants under MCL 445.”
Lafontaine Saline Inc v. Chrysler Grp. LLC (Mich. 2013). “The parties shall address whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the 2010 PA 139 definition of “relevant market area,” MCL 445.1566(1)(a), applied to enable the plaintiff to challenge the future dealer agreement between the defendants under MCL 445.”
Lafontaine Saline Inc v. Chrysler Grp. LLC (Mich. 2013). “The parties shall address whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the 2010 PA 139 definition of “relevant market area,” MCL 445.1566(1)(a), applied to enable the plaintiff to challenge the future dealer agreement between the defendants under MCL 445.”
Lafontaine Saline Inc v. Chrysler Grp. LLC (Mich. 2013). “The parties shall address whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the 2010 PA 139 definition of “relevant market area,” MCL 445.1566(1)(a), applied to enable the plaintiff to challenge the future dealer agreement between the defendants under MCL 445.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1566(a) — 2 cases
Lafontaine Saline, Inc v. Chrysler Grp. LLC, 496 Mich. 26 (Mich. 2014). “31 The Legislature’s silence regarding retroactivity in its amendment of the definition of “relevant market area” undermines any argument that MCL 445.1566 was intended to apply retroactively.”
LaFontaine Saline Inc. v. Chrysler Grp. LLC, 828 N.W.2d 446 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). “” MCL 445.1566(a), as amended by 1983 PA 188 .”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1566(l)(a) — 2 cases
Lafontaine Saline, Inc v. Chrysler Grp. LLC, 496 Mich. 26 (Mich. 2014). “31 The Legislature’s silence regarding retroactivity in its amendment of the definition of “relevant market area” undermines any argument that MCL 445.1566 was intended to apply retroactively.”
LaFontaine Saline Inc. v. Chrysler Grp. LLC, 828 N.W.2d 446 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). “” MCL 445.1566(a), as amended by 1983 PA 188 .”
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.