Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 135.065 (2026)
Temporary injunctions
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
135.065135.065 Temporary injunctions. In any action brought by a dealer against a grantor under this chapter, any violation of this chapter by the grantor is deemed an irreparable injury to the dealer for determining if a temporary injunction should be issued.
135.065 AnnotationFour factors considered in granting preliminary injunction are discussed. The loss of good will constituted irreparable harm. Reinders Bros. v. Rain Bird Eastern Sales Corp., 627 F.2d 44 (1980).
135.065 AnnotationThe court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction notwithstanding the arguable likelihood that the defendant would ultimately prevail at trial. Menominee Rubber Co. v. Gould, Inc., 657 F.2d 164 (1981).
135.065 AnnotationAlthough the plaintiff showed irreparable harm, the failure to show a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits precluded a preliminary injunction. Milwaukee Rentals, Inc. v. Budget Rent A Car Corp., 496 F. Supp. 253 (1980).
135.065 AnnotationA presumption of irreparable harm exists in favor of a dealer when a violation is shown. For the presumption to apply, a dealership relationship must be shown to exist. Price Engineering Co., Inc. v. Vickes, Inc., 774 F. Supp. 1160 (1991).
135.065 AnnotationIf a plaintiff establishes the likelihood of a violation of this chapter, the statute creates a rebuttable of irreparable harm. The effect of the statute is to transfer from the plaintiff to the defendant the burden of going forward with evidence on the question of irreparable injury. If neither party presents evidence on the issue, the rebuttable presumption created by the statute requires a finding in favor of the dealer. If, however, the grantor presents evidence of the absence of irreparable injury, the presumption is no longer relevant, and the dealer must come forward with evidence negating the grantor’s evidence. S&S Sales Corp. v. Marvin Lumber & Cedar Co., 435 F. Supp. 2d 879 (2006).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 33
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case: S&S SALES CORP. v. Marvin Lumber & Cedar Co., 435 F. Supp. 2d 879 (E.D. Wis. 2006).
S&S SALES CORP. v. Marvin Lumber & Cedar Co., 435 F. Supp. 2d 879 (E.D. Wis. 2006). “” Thus, before discussing the evidence, I will address the effect of this provision.”
Winebow, Inc. v. Capitol-Husting Co., Inc., 914 N.W.2d 631 (Wis. 2018). “Section 135.065 deems any violation of the chapter by a grantor an irreparable injury for purposes of seeking a temporary injunction.”
Les Moise, Inc. v. Rossignol Ski Co., Inc., 361 N.W.2d 653 (Wis. 1985). “06 and sec. 135.065, Stats. Therefore, under the Barry rule, Les Moise's cause of action accrued for statute of limitations purposes upon its receipt of Rossignol's written notice.”
Girl Scouts of Manitou Council, Inc. v. Girl Scouts of United States of Am., Inc., 549 F.3d 1079 (7th Cir. 2008). “Wis. Stat. § 135.065 . The statute does not make clear, nor have the Wisconsin courts addressed, whether this statutory presumption of irreparable harm is rebuttable or irrebuttable.”
Al Bishop Agency, Inc. v. Lithonia-Div. of Nat'l Serv. Indus., Inc., 474 F. Supp. 828 (E.D. Wis. 1979). “In passing the Wisconsin Pair Dealership Law, the Wisconsin Legislature apparently determined that willy nilly terminations of dealerships dis-served the public interest and that it served the public interest to permit termination only upon a showing of good cause.”
Siegel v. Leer, Inc., 457 N.W.2d 533 (Wis. Ct. App. 1990). “In addition, sec. 135.065, Stats., provides: Temporary injunctions.”
Praefke Auto Elec. & Battery Co. v. Tecumseh Prods. Co., 110 F. Supp. 2d 899 (E.D. Wis. 2000). “Praefke contends that its termination as an ASD, without cause and without notice, violated the WFDL. Additional information will be provided in the course of the discussion.”
S & S SALES CORP. v. Marvin Lumber & Cedar Co., 457 F. Supp. 2d 903 (E.D. Wis. 2006). “S&S contends that Wis. Stat. § 135.065 requires a court to balance harms even when the movant does not establish irreparable injury.”
Praefke Auto Elec. & Battery Co. v. Tecumseh Prods. Co., 123 F. Supp. 2d 470 (E.D. Wis. 2000). “” Wis. Stat. § 135.065 . The Wisconsin Legislature declared that the WFDL’s underlying purposes and policies include protecting dealers against unfair treatment by grantors and “provid[ing] dealers with rights and remedies in addition to those existing by contract or common law.”
Fleet Wholesale Supply Co., Inc. v. Remington Arms Co., Inc., 846 F.2d 1095 (7th Cir. 1988). “It also relied on Wis.Stat. § 135.065, which says that any violation of the Act “is deemed an irreparable injury to *1097 the dealer for determining if a temporary injunction should be issued.”
CL Thompson Co., Inc. v. Festo Corp., 708 F. Supp. 221 (E.D. Wis. 1989). “IRREPARABLE HARM Wis.Stat. § 135.065 provides that “[i]n any action brought by a dealer against a grantor, any violation of this chapter is deemed an irreparable injury to the dealer for determining if a temporary injunction should be issued.”
Menominee Rubber Co. v. Gould, Inc., 657 F.2d 164 (7th Cir. 1981). “Wis.Stat. § 135.065. In light of this clear imbalance, the district court was within its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction notwithstanding an arguable likelihood that MRC will ultimately prevail at trial.”
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.