U.S. Code » Title 15 » Chapter CHAPTER 27— AUTOMOBILE DEALER SUITS AGAINST MANUFACTURERS

15 U.S.C. § 1222

Authorization of suits against manufacturers; amount of recovery; defenses

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 15 CasesGoogle Scholar

An automobile dealer may bring suit against any automobile manufacturer engaged in commerce, in any district court of the United States in the district in which said manufacturer resides, or is found, or has an agent, without respect to the amount in controversy, and shall recover the damages by him sustained and the cost of suit by reason of the failure of said automobile manufacturer from and after August 8, 1956, to act in good faith in performing or complying with any of the terms or provisions of the franchise, or in terminating, canceling, or not renewing the franchise with said dealer: Provided, That in any such suit the manufacturer shall not be barred from asserting in defense of any such action the failure of the dealer to act in good faith.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 203 cases (14 in the last 5 years), 1959–2025 · 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 3× “The ADDCA generally requires a manufacturer to act in “good faith” in its relations with its dealers, see 15 U.S.C. § 1222 , and defines “good faith” narrowly as precluding “coercion, intimidation, or threats of coercion or intimidation,” id.”
Key v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 918 P.2d 350 (N.M. 1996). · cites it 2× “See 15 U.S.C. § 1222 ; Stansifer v. Chrysler Motors Corp.”
East Ford, Inc. v. Taylor, 826 So. 2d 709 (Miss. 2002). “See 15 U.S.C. § 1222 (1997). By the same token, individuals and small businesses should be afforded the same rights.”
Sunrise Toyota, Ltd. v. Toyota Motor Co., 55 F.R.D. 519 (S.D.N.Y. 1972). · cites it 5× “§ 15 (§ 4 of the Clayton Act), on 15 U.S. C. § 1222 for the Automobile Dealers’ Day in Court Act claims, and on 28 U.”
Lockwood Motors, Inc. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 162 F.R.D. 569 (D. Minnesota 1995). · cites it 2× “members are so numerous that joinder is impracticable; (2) its claims are typical of the class it seeks to represent; (3) it will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class; (4) its claims involve issues of law and fact common to the class, and these common issues…”
Martin Motor Sales, Inc. v. Saab-Scania of Am., Inc., 452 F. Supp. 1047 (S.D.N.Y. 1978). · cites it 6× “The court now finds that plaintiff should prevail on its claim that defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1222 . Damages are awarded in the sum of $36,-840.”
United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 384 U.S. 127 (1966). · cites it 2× “Instead we expected that this would be handled on a sound, calm, sensible business-like approach.”
Semmes Motors, Inc., Suing on Behalf of Itself & Together With Ford Dealers All., Inc., Etc. v. Ford Motor Co., 429 F.2d 1197 (2d Cir. 1970). · cites it 2× “Insofar as Semmes relies on the Federal Dealer Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1222 , a New Jersey federal court is as well equipped to decide the issues as one in New York.”
Bronx Chrysler Plymouth, Inc. v. Chrysler Corp., 212 F. Supp. 2d 233 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). · cites it 2× “” 15 U.S.C. § 1222 . The statute confers a right of action upon “automobile dealer[s],” id.”
Danvers Motor Co., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 543 F.3d 141 (3rd Cir. 2008). “” 15 U.S.C. § 1222 . Plaintiffs allege that The ‘choices’ contemplated in the Blue Oval Program are facially coercive in that, to become Certified and then Re-certified annually, Plaintiff dealers have committed substantial investments of time, effort, personnel and dollars…”
DeCantis v. Mid-Atl. Toyota Distributors, Inc., 371 F. Supp. 1238 (E.D. Va. 1974). · cites it 8× “Jurisdiction is attained pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1222 . 1 The parties are presently before the Court pursuant to the defendant’s motion to dismiss which, because of the reliance placed on documents and materials outside the pleadings, the Court treats as a motion for summary…”
Anthony L. Arciniaga v. Gen. Motors Corp., Docket No. 05-6299-Cv, 460 F.3d 231 (2d Cir. 2006). “§ 1981 ; (2) violation of the Automobile Dealers Day in Court Act (the “ADDCA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1222 ; (3) breach of contract; (4) breach of the covenant of good faith and- fair dealing; (5) breach of the fiduciary duty owed by a majority shareholder to a minority shareholder; and…”
Show all 203 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.