N.J. Stat. » Title 56 — TRADE NAMES, TRADE-MARKS AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES
New Jersey Statutes

N.J. Stat. § 56:10-1 (2026)

Short title

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaN.J. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

This act shall be known and may be cited as the "Franchise Practices Act."

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 70 cases (16 in the last 5 years), 1974–2025 · leading case: Gen. Motors Corp. Chevrolet Motor Div. v. The New A.C. Chevrolet, Inc. Dba the New A.C. Chevrolet, 263 F.3d 296 (3rd Cir. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Gen. Motors Corp. Chevrolet Motor Div. v. The New A.C. Chevrolet, Inc. Dba the New A.C. Chevrolet, 263 F.3d 296 (3rd Cir. 2001). · cites it 2× “§§ 1221-25 ; and New Jersey’s Franchise Practices Act (NJFPA), N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 56:10-1 to 56:10-15. In its response, New AC asserted that the planned termination was actually part of GM’s predetermined design to remove New AC as a Chevrolet franchisee, and to have another…”
Atl. Richfield Co. v. Razumic, 390 A.2d 736 (Pa. 1978). · cites it 2× “The Supreme Court of New Jersey has held that the New Jersey Franchise Practices Act, N.J.S.A. 56:10-1 et seq., proscribing a franchisor's termination of franchise agreements except for just cause, embodies policies *379 in existence before the effective date of the Act, and…”
Liberty Lincoln Mercury, Inc. v. Ford Mktg. Corp., 149 F.R.D. 65 (D.N.J. 1993). · cites it 2× “Liberty Lincoln takes the position that reimbursement for any amount less than its retail price violates the New Jersey Franchise Practice Act, N.J.S.A., §§ 56:10-1 et seq. (the "Franchise Practice Act").”
Beilowitz v. Gen. Motors Corp., 233 F. Supp. 2d 631 (D.N.J. 2002). · cites it 4× “This ease illustrates the very reason the New Jersey Franchise Practices Act (“NJFPA”), N.J.S.A. §§ 56:10-1, et seq., was enacted — to protect franchisees, possessed of less bargaining power than their franchisors, from such daunting “choices.”
Dunkin' Donuts Inc. v. Patel, 174 F. Supp. 2d 202 (D.N.J. 2001). · cites it 2× “ccuracy of the inspections that provided the basis for Plaintiffs actions; (2) the “unfair and harassing inspection procedures employed”; and, (3) whether the inspections and the motion for summary judgment were brought in bad faith with the intent to interfere with Defendants’…”
Elliott & Frantz, Inc. v. Ingersoll-Rand Co., 457 F.3d 312 (3rd Cir. 2006). “In point of fact, in reaching its decision in Shell Oil, the New Jersey Supreme Court based its public policy analysis largely on the legislative concerns embodied in the New Jersey Franchise Practices Act, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 56:10-1 (West 2001), see 307 A.”
Meyer v. Amerada Hess Corp., 541 F. Supp. 321 (D.N.J. 1982). · cites it 2× “The Second Count seeks relief under the New Jersey Franchise Practices Act, N.J.S.A. 56:10-1 et seq. The Third and Fourth Counts allege state common law claims.”
Carlo C. Gelardi Corp. v. Miller Brewing Co., 502 F. Supp. 637 (D.N.J. 1980). · cites it 2× “§ 13 , and the New Jersey Franchise Practices Act, N.J.S.A. 56:10-1 et seq., as well as breach of contract and tortious interference with business and contractual opportunity.”
Ocean City Express Co. v. Atlas Van Lines, Inc., 194 F. Supp. 3d 314 (D.N.J. 2016). · cites it 2× “(hereinafter, “Defendant” or “Atlas Van Lines” or “Atlas”) violated the New Jersey Franchise Practices Act, N.J.S.A. §§ 56:10-1, -15 (hereinafter, the “NJFPA” or the “Act”) when it terminated the parties’ March 31, 2006 Agency Agreement without “good cause.”
Carlo C. Gelardi Corp. v. Miller Brewing Co., 421 F. Supp. 237 (D.N.J. 1976). · cites it 2× “On May 7th, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging violations of the New Jersey Franchise Practices Act, N.J.Stat.Ann. § 56:10-1, et seq. On that same day, this Court signed an order to show cause and entered an order temporarily restraining Miller from discontinuing…”
Coast Cities Truck Sales, Inc. v. Navistar Int'l Transp. Co., 912 F. Supp. 747 (D.N.J. 1995). · cites it 2× “Count VI of the Complaint alleges that defendant NITC’s sale of trucks directly to consumers, most notably national fleet accounts in New Jersey, violates the New Jersey Franchise Practices Act, N.J.S.A. 56:10-1 et seq. Id. ¶¶ 60-65. Count VII asserts that defendants’ acts…”
Gen. Motors Corp. v. New A.C. Chevrolet, Inc., 91 F. Supp. 2d 733 (D.N.J. 2000). · cites it 3× “§§ 1221-22 ; or the New Jersey Franchise Practices Act, N.J.S.A. §§ 56:10-1 et seq. New A.C. filed a nine count counterclaim and sought a preliminary injunction to bar GM from terminating the Agreement.”
Show all 70 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.