Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 80E. MOTOR VEHICLE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 80E.17 (2026)

Civil Remedies

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Notwithstanding the terms of any franchise agreement or waiver to the contrary, any person whose business or property is injured by a violation of sections 80E.01 to 80E.17, or any person injured because of the refusal to accede to a proposal for an arrangement which, if consummated, would be in violation of sections 80E.01 to 80E.17, may bring a civil action to enjoin further violations and to recover the actual damages sustained, together with costs and disbursements, including reasonable attorney's fees.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1985–2022 · leading case: Metro Motors, LLC v. Nissan Motor Corp. in USA, 170 F. Supp. 2d 888 (D. Minn. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Metro Motors, LLC v. Nissan Motor Corp. in USA, 170 F. Supp. 2d 888 (D. Minn. 2001). · cites it 6× “Nissan also contends that Plaintiff does not have standing to bring its claims because it has failed to allege that it has suffered sufficient injury.”
John Peterson Motors, Inc. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 613 F. Supp. 887 (D. Minn. 1985). · cites it 2× “§ 80E.17 is patterned after section 4 of the *904 Clayton Act, and that Peterson would not have standing under the statute because he was not directly injured.”
Metro Motors v. Nissan Motor Corp., 339 F.3d 746 (8th Cir. 2003). · cites it 2× “" Minn. Stat. § 80E.17. We agree Nissan's conduct in violating the Act was sufficient injury to Metro for standing purposes.”
Dorso Trailer Sales, Inc. v. Am. Body & Trailer, Inc., 464 N.W.2d 551 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 4× “08 and the remedies set forth in section 80E.17, operate as a substantial impairment of contract.”
Lupient Chevrolet, Inc. v. Gen. Motors, LLC, No. 0:19-cv-00705 (D. Minn. June 30, 2022). · cites it 6× “Minn. Stat. § 80E.17. The parties do not dispute that Lupient must demonstrate an injury to prevail.”
Lupient Chevrolet, Inc. v. Gen. Motors, LLC, No. 0:19-cv-00705 (D. Minn. Jan. 21, 2020). · cites it 4× “” Minn. Stat. § 80E.17. Lupient is not required to plead with specificity the precise contours of the damages it has suffered at this stage of the proceedings.”
In re: Shakopee Chevrolet Inc. v. Gen. Motors LLC, No. 0:20-cv-02366 (D. Minn. May 5, 2021). · cites it 2× “See Minn. Stat. § 80E.17. However, the Court finds that Shakopee Chevrolet has pleaded facts consistent with a viable claim that GM’s efforts to modify Shakopee Chevrolet’s APR, and its written notice and correspondence to that effect, was significant enough to pose a threat to…”
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.