Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 168.71 (2026)

[Repealed]

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

MS 2004 [Renumbered 53C.08]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 17 cases, 1964–2006 · leading case: Scott v. Forest Lake Chrysler-Plymouth-Dodge, 598 N.W.2d 713 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Scott v. Forest Lake Chrysler-Plymouth-Dodge, 598 N.W.2d 713 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 88× “Minn.Stat. § 168.71 (1994) provides: (a)(1) Every retail installment contract shall be in writing, shall contain all the agreements of the parties, shall be signed by the retail buyer and seller, and a copy thereof shall be furnished to such retail buyer at the time of the…”

Scott v. Forest Lake Chrysler-Plymouth-Dodge, 611 N.W.2d 346 (Minn. 2000). · cites it 30× “§§ 1601-1693 and violations of several Minnesota statutes including Minn. Stat. § 168.71 (a)(1) (Minnesota Motor Vehicle Retail Installment Sales Act (MMVRISA)), Minn.”

Scott v. Forest Lake Chrysler-Plymouth-Dodge, 668 N.W.2d 45 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 10× “Appellant challenges summary judgment dismissing his claims for intentional damages and limiting him to damages and attorney fees for an unintentional violation of Minnesota Motor Vehicle Retail Installment 'Sales Act (MMVRISA) under Minn. Stat. § 168.71 (2002). Because…”

Kinzel v. Southview Chevrolet Co., 892 F. Supp. 1211 (D. Minnesota 1995). · cites it 5× “Motor Vehicle Retail Installment Sales Act The Minnesota legislature has defined the MTVRISA’s disclosure obligations in Minn.Stat. § 168.71(b). The statute explicitly provides that, as one method of compliance, a retail seller “may give the retail buyer disclosures which…”

VanDanacker v. Main Motor Sales Co., 109 F. Supp. 2d 1045 (D. Minnesota 2000). · cites it 2× “The sum requested is the amount that Plaintiffs sought in damages for their claim for violation of Minn.Stat. § 168.71(b)(4), the Motor Vehicle Installment Sales Act.”

Liabo v. Wayzata Nissan, LLC, 707 N.W.2d 715 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 9× “Appellant argues: (a) she did not sign a binding contract; (b) the seller was required to provide her with disclosures pursuant to the Truth-in-Lending Act and obtain her signature as required by Minn. Stat. § 168.71 (1998); (c) failure to provide such disclosures constitutes a…”

Scott v. Forest Lake Chrysler-Plymouth Dodge, 637 N.W.2d 587 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 32× “Scott contends that (1) the six-year statute of limitations applies to his claims; (2) FLC cannot claim a “statutory-cure defense” to the requirements of Minn.Stat. § 168.71(a)(1) (1996); (3) a de minimis exception to the requirements of Minn.”

Wiegand v. Walser Auto. Groups, Inc., 670 N.W.2d 449 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 4× “1 (2002), a provision of the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), and Minn.Stat. § 168.71(a), (b) (2002), a provision of the Minnesota Motor Vehicle Retail Installment Sales Act.”

Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Russell, 519 N.W.2d 460 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “See Minn.Stat. § 168.71(a)(1) (1992) (every retail installment contract shall be in writing and shall contain all the agreements of the parties).”

Majestic Inc. v. Berry, 593 N.W.2d 251 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “Because he has known for some time that judgment was entered, he cannot now object that he had no opportunity to obtain review on the disputed issues.”

Kadlec Motors, Inc. v. Knudson, 383 N.W.2d 342 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 168.71(a)(1) (1982) (emphasis supplied.”

Hockemeyer v. Pooler, 130 N.W.2d 367 (Minn. 1964). “Since third-party defendants had fully complied with the provisions of § 168.71(c) the court below would have been justified in holding *561 as a matter of law no negligence had been established upon the evidence submitted.”

Show all 17 citing cases →

— Minn. Stat. § 168.71(2) — 1 case

Majestic Inc. v. Berry, 593 N.W.2d 251 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999). “Because he has known for some time that judgment was entered, he cannot now object that he had no opportunity to obtain review on the disputed issues.”

— Minn. Stat. § 168.71(a) — 1 case

Wiegand v. Walser Auto. Groups, Inc., 670 N.W.2d 449 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003). “1 (2002), a provision of the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), and Minn.Stat. § 168.71(a), (b) (2002), a provision of the Minnesota Motor Vehicle Retail Installment Sales Act.”

— Minn. Stat. § 168.71(a)(1) — 7 cases

Scott v. Forest Lake Chrysler-Plymouth-Dodge, 598 N.W.2d 713 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999). “Minn.Stat. § 168.71 (1994) provides: (a)(1) Every retail installment contract shall be in writing, shall contain all the agreements of the parties, shall be signed by the retail buyer and seller, and a copy thereof shall be furnished to such retail buyer at the time of the…”

Scott v. Forest Lake Chrysler-Plymouth-Dodge, 611 N.W.2d 346 (Minn. 2000). “§§ 1601-1693 and violations of several Minnesota statutes including Minn. Stat. § 168.71 (a)(1) (Minnesota Motor Vehicle Retail Installment Sales Act (MMVRISA)), Minn.”

Scott v. Forest Lake Chrysler-Plymouth-Dodge, 668 N.W.2d 45 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003). “Appellant challenges summary judgment dismissing his claims for intentional damages and limiting him to damages and attorney fees for an unintentional violation of Minnesota Motor Vehicle Retail Installment 'Sales Act (MMVRISA) under Minn. Stat. § 168.71 (2002). Because…”

Scott v. Forest Lake Chrysler-Plymouth Dodge, 637 N.W.2d 587 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002). “Scott contends that (1) the six-year statute of limitations applies to his claims; (2) FLC cannot claim a “statutory-cure defense” to the requirements of Minn.Stat. § 168.71(a)(1) (1996); (3) a de minimis exception to the requirements of Minn.”

Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Russell, 519 N.W.2d 460 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994). “See Minn.Stat. § 168.71(a)(1) (1992) (every retail installment contract shall be in writing and shall contain all the agreements of the parties).”

— Minn. Stat. § 168.71(b) — 5 cases

Kinzel v. Southview Chevrolet Co., 892 F. Supp. 1211 (D. Minnesota 1995). “Motor Vehicle Retail Installment Sales Act The Minnesota legislature has defined the MTVRISA’s disclosure obligations in Minn.Stat. § 168.71(b). The statute explicitly provides that, as one method of compliance, a retail seller “may give the retail buyer disclosures which…”

Ruona v. Freeway Dodge, Inc., 171 N.W.2d 212 (Minn. 1969).

Liabo v. Wayzata Nissan, LLC, 707 N.W.2d 715 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006). “Appellant argues: (a) she did not sign a binding contract; (b) the seller was required to provide her with disclosures pursuant to the Truth-in-Lending Act and obtain her signature as required by Minn. Stat. § 168.71 (1998); (c) failure to provide such disclosures constitutes a…”

— Minn. Stat. § 168.71(b)(4) — 1 case

VanDanacker v. Main Motor Sales Co., 109 F. Supp. 2d 1045 (D. Minnesota 2000). “The sum requested is the amount that Plaintiffs sought in damages for their claim for violation of Minn.Stat. § 168.71(b)(4), the Motor Vehicle Installment Sales Act.”

— Minn. Stat. § 168.71(b)(l) — 1 case

— Minn. Stat. § 168.71(c) — 1 case

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.