Wis. Stat. » CHAPTER 135 — DEALERSHIP PRACTICES
Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 135.06 (2026)

Action for damages and injunctive relief

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
135.06135.06 Action for damages and injunctive relief. If any grantor violates this chapter, a dealer may bring an action against such grantor in any court of competent jurisdiction for damages sustained by the dealer as a consequence of the grantor’s violation, together with the actual costs of the action, including reasonable actual attorney fees, and the dealer also may be granted injunctive relief against unlawful termination, cancellation, nonrenewal or substantial change of competitive circumstances.
135.06 HistoryHistory: 1973 c. 179; 1993 a. 482.
135.06 AnnotationIn an action for termination of a dealership upon written notice not complying with this chapter and without good cause, the statute of limitations started running upon receipt of the termination notice. Les Moise, Inc. v. Rossignol Ski Co., Inc., 122 Wis. 2d 51, 361 N.W.2d 653 (1985).
135.06 AnnotationThe term “actual costs of the action” includes appellate attorney fees. Siegel v. Leer, Inc., 156 Wis. 2d 621, 457 N.W.2d 533 (Ct. App. 1990).
135.06 AnnotationThe measure of damages is discussed. C.A. May Marine Supply Co. v. Brunswick Corp., 649 F.2d 1049 (1981).
135.06 AnnotationA cause of action accrued when a defective notice under s. 135.04 was given, not when the dealership was actually terminated. Hammil v. Rickel Mfg. Corp., 719 F.2d 252 (1983).
135.06 AnnotationThis section does not restrict recovery of damages with respect to inventory on hand at the time of termination to “fair wholesale market value.” Kealey Pharmacy v. Walgreen Co., 761 F.2d 345 (1985).
135.06 AnnotationAccountant fees were properly included under this section. Bright v. Land O’ Lakes, Inc., 844 F.2d 436 (1988).
135.06 AnnotationThere is no presumption in favor of injunctive relief and against damages for lost future profits. Frieburg Farm Equip. v. Van Dale, Inc., 978 F.2d 395 (1992).
135.06 AnnotationAn arbitration award that did not award attorney fees was enforceable. Parties may agree to bear their own legal expenses when resolving differences; what the parties may do, an arbitrator as their mutual agent may also do. George Watts & Son, Inc. v. Tiffany & Co., 248 F.3d 577 (2001).
135.06 AnnotationThe determination of damages and attorney fees is discussed. Esch v. Yazoo Manufacturing Co., 510 F. Supp. 53 (1981).
135.06 AnnotationPunitive damages are not available in what is essentially an action for breach of contract. White Hen Pantry, Div. Jewel Companies v. Johnson, 599 F. Supp. 718 (1984).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 41 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case: Thomas F. Benson v. City of Madison, 2017 WI 65 (Wis. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Thomas F. Benson v. City of Madison, 2017 WI 65 (Wis. 2017). · cites it 8× “Wis. Stat. § 135.06 . ¶22 In this case we are asked to determine whether the WFDL applies to the City, and if so, whether the relationships between the Golf Pros and the City are "dealerships" under the WFDL.”
Kania v. Airborne Freight Corp., 300 N.W.2d 63 (Wis. 1981). · cites it 10× “, as a matter of law, for it failed to fulfill the requirement of a community of interest, and denied Kania’s motion for injunctive relief under sec. 135.06, Stats. The defendant thereupon moved for an order dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint and the court granted the motion…”
Winebow, Inc. v. Capitol-Husting Co., Inc., 914 N.W.2d 631 (Wis. 2018). · cites it 7× “§ 135.06 . Further, a "dealer also may be granted injunctive relief against unlawful termination, cancellation, nonrenewal or substantial change of competitive circumstances.”
Siegel v. Leer, Inc., 457 N.W.2d 533 (Wis. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 6× “(Leer) appeals from a judgment awarding Bernard Siegel and Liela Siegel, d/b/a Cap Connection (Cap), actual attorney's fees pursuant to sec. 135.06, Stats., of the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law (WFDL).”
Les Moise, Inc. v. Rossignol Ski Co., Inc., 361 N.W.2d 653 (Wis. 1985). · cites it 6× “According to sec. 135.06, Stats. 1981-82, if a grantor violates more than one provision of ch.”
Kealey Pharmacy & Home Care Serv., Inc. v. Walgreen Co., 539 F. Supp. 1357 (W.D. Wis. 1982). · cites it 4× “Section 135.06 provides that a dealer “also may be granted injunctive relief against unlawful termination, cancellation, nonrenewal, or substantial change of competitive circumstances.”
Lindevig v. Dairy Equip. Co., 442 N.W.2d 504 (Wis. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 4× “Section 135.06, Stats., provides: If any grantor violates this chapter, a dealer may bring an action against such grantor in any court of competent jurisdiction for damages sustained by him as a consequence of the grantor's violation, together with the actual costs of the…”
Jungbluth v. Hometown, Inc., 548 N.W.2d 519 (Wis. 1996). · cites it 2× “at 455 ; see also Wis. Stat. § 135.06 . The court of appeals reversed the decision of the circuit court, holding that the phrase "of a dealership agreement" should be inserted into Wis.”
Esch v. Yazoo Mfg. Co., 510 F. Supp. 53 (E.D. Wis. 1981). · cites it 4× “The Court has carefully reviewed the requested attorney’s fees and, with the exception of the request for a secretary’s time, the Court finds the fees reasonable given the Court’s discretion under Wis.Stat. § 135.06. The Court has, in the past, authorized fees for law clerks and…”
George Watts & Son, Inc. v. Tiffany & Co., 248 F.3d 577 (7th Cir. 2001). “” Wis. Stat. § 135.06 . The plain language of this statute clearly allows for the recovery of attorney fees, but it does not go so far as to state that such recovery is mandatory.”
Bong v. Cerny, 463 N.W.2d 359 (Wis. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 3× “Because sec. 135.06, Stats., allows a dealer to bring an action for damages against the grantor for a termination without good cause, the complaint states a claim.”
Wisconsin Compressed Air Corp. v. Gardner Denver, Inc., 571 F. Supp. 2d 992 (W.D. Wis. 2008). · cites it 4× “unlawful substantial change of competitive circumstances” under Wis. Stat. § 135.06 , and, when a dealer has a right to cure under § 135.”
Show all 41 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.