Cases from cite.case.law:

E. HEADLEY, Jr. No. v. CITY OF MIAMI,, 118 So. 3d 885 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . See § 218.01, Fla. Stat. . Cf. Commc'ns Workers of Am. v. Indian River Cnty. Sch. . . .

CAPITOL PAVING OF D. C. INC. v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,, 496 F. Supp. 2d 54 (D.D.C. 2007)

. . . , Local, and Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Development and Assistance Act of 2005, D.C.Code § 2-218.01 . . .

EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURERS INSTITUTE, AGCO v. J. JANKLOW, W., 300 F.3d 842 (8th Cir. 2002)

. . . . § 218.01(3)(a)(17) (enacted in 1937, renumbered at § 218.0116(1)(i) by 1999 Act 31, §§ 14 to 283, eff . . . Stat. § 218.01(3x) (renumbered at § 218.0134(3)(a) by 1999 Act 31, §§ 14 to 283, eff. . . .

RAY HUTSON CHEVROLET, INCORPORATED, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION,, 235 F.3d 348 (7th Cir. 2000)

. . . diversity jurisdiction, requires us to interpret a provision of the Wisconsin Automobile Dealership Law, § 218.01 . . . The 1993 revisions created § 218.01(3x), which set out procedures for challenging a manufacturer’s refusal . . . Section 218.01(9), provides a civil cause of action for various violations of the law: “Without exhausting . . . Section 218.01(3)(a)24. . . .

NORTHGATE MOTORS, INC. v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION,, 111 F. Supp. 2d 1071 (E.D. Wis. 2000)

. . . . § 218.0134(2)(c) (formerly § 218.01(3x)(b)(3)). . . . The agency found that Kopecko “used the rights granted ... by sec. 218.01(3x), Stats., as additional . . . These claims allege that GM violated § 218.01(2g) of the WMVDL (now § 218.0124) by applying an unfair . . . Stat. § 218.01. The statute was renumbered effective April 19, 2000. . . . . Violating Section 218.01, (2f) and (2g). (pursuant to Section 218.01, (3)(a)(22) Wis. . . .

WFS FINANCIAL INC. v. L. DEAN,, 79 F. Supp. 2d 1024 (W.D. Wis. 1999)

. . . . § 218.01; engages in “consumer transactions”; is registered under the Wisconsin Consumer Act; and pays . . . Stat. § 218.01(2)(a) and put in jeopardy the licenses of the dealers from which plaintiff purchases contracts . . .

CHRYSLER CORPORATION, v. KOLOSSO AUTO SALES, INC., 148 F.3d 892 (7th Cir. 1998)

. . . . § 218.01, did not expressly limit an auto manufacturer’s right to include such a provision in a dealership . . . Stat. § 218.01(3x). . . . Stat. § 218.01(3x)(c). . . . Stat. § 218.01 (1937). . . . Stat. § 218.01(3)(17); Nagle Motors, Inc. v. . . .

BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. v. GORE, 517 U.S. 559 (U.S. 1996)

. . . . §218.01(2d)(a) (1994); Wyo. Stat. §31-16-115 (1994). . . .

AMERICAN SUZUKI MOTOR CORPORATION, a v. BILL KUMMER, INCORPORATED, a B., 65 F.3d 1381 (7th Cir. 1995)

. . . . § 218.01(3)(a)(17), 218.01(2)(bd)2. . . . Wis.Stat. § 218.01(2)(bd)2. . . . And as set forth above, a violation of subsection 218.01(2)(bd)2 constitutes a violation of section 218.01 . . . 218.01(9)(am). . . . Adopted by statute 218.01(3)(a)(17). . . .

DOUCAS VOLKSWAGEN, INC. v. VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC. d b a, 893 F. Supp. 15 (E.D. Wis. 1995)

. . . . § 218.01(2)(bd)2, which provides: Any dealer or distributor discontinued or canceled may, on or before . . . upon the respondent a complaint for a determination of unfair discontinuation or cancellation under [218.01 . . . Unfair discontinuation or cancellation of a dealership under Wis.Stats. § 218.01(3)(a)17, is defined . . . According to the allegations of the complaint, Doucas is a licensed motor vehicle dealer under Wis.Stats. § 218.01 . . .

KAYSER FORD, INC. a a k a a v. NORTHERN REBUILDERS, INC. a, 760 F. Supp. 749 (W.D. Wis. 1991)

. . . unnecessary to address those arguments concerning the relationship between Wisconsin Statutes §§ 135.07 and 218.01 . . .

U. S. GOLD SILVER INVESTMENTS, INC. v. UNITED STATES DIRECTOR, U. S. MINT J., 885 F.2d 620 (9th Cir. 1989)

. . . Jayson, Handling Federal Tort Claims: Administrative and Judicial Remedies § 218.01 (1988). . . .

GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, v. GALLO GMC TRUCK SALES, INC., 711 F. Supp. 810 (D.N.J. 1989)

. . . . § 218.01 (West 1982), the definition of a “franchise” is equivalent to that of a “dealership” as defined . . .

BOB WILLOW MOTORS, INC. a v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, a, 872 F.2d 788 (7th Cir. 1989)

. . . It trebled the remaining damages under § 218.01(9)(a). Wis.Stat.Ann. § 218.01(9)(a). . . . Section 218.01 is remedial in nature and should be liberally construed. . . . Section 218.01(l)(i). . . . Further support for this conclusion can be found in § 218.01(9)(a). . . . Wis.Stat.Ann. § 218.01(9)(a). . . .

WISCONSIN TRUCK CENTER, INC. v. VOLVO WHITE TRUCK CORPORATION GM, 692 F. Supp. 1010 (W.D. Wis. 1988)

. . . Economic regulation such as the Wisconsin Motor Vehicle Dealership Law (WMVDL), Chapter 218.01, Wis.Stats . . . Volvo GM was granted as to liability for failure to continue an existing franchise in violation of § 218.01 . . . Volvo GM also asserts that the term “newly appointed distributor” in § 218.01(l)(e) is unconstitutionally . . . Volvo GM contends that this court’s application of § 218.01(3)(a)17 to hold Volvo GM directly liable . . . Void For Vagueness Volvo GM also challenges the validity of § 218.01(3)(a)17 on the grounds that the . . .

STEPP, v. FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY,, 623 F. Supp. 583 (E.D. Wis. 1985)

. . . . § 1221, et seq.), § 218.01, Wis.Stats., § 133.03, Wis.Stats., and numerous common law claims. . . . Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, the federal Dealers Day-in-Court Act, Wisconsin Statutes § 133.03 and § 218.01 . . . Similarly, my original decision as to Stepp’s standing to pursue his claim under Wisconsin Statutes § 218.01 . . . has moved for summary judgment on Stepp’s Eleventh and Twelfth causes of action, for violations of §§ 218.01 . . . and 218.01(7), Wis.Stats. . . .

NEW MOTOR VEHICLE BOARD OF CALIFORNIA v. ORRIN W. FOX CO., 439 U.S. 96 (U.S. 1978)

. . . . §218.01 (3) (f) (1957). The Court cites Forest Home Dodge, Inc. v. Karns, 29 Wis. 2d 78, 138 N. . . . Ann. §218.01 (3) (f) (1957). . . . Ann. § 218.01 (3) (f) (1957), authorize public officials to deny applications for approval of new dealerships . . . . §218.01 (1957 and Supp. 1978-1979). . . . Ann. §§218.01 (3), (8) (1957 and Supp. 1978-1979). See Cal. Veh. Code Ann. § 507 (West Supp. 1978). . . .

NEW MOTOR VEHICLE BOARD OF CALIFORNIA v. ORRIN W. FOX CO., 434 U.S. 1345 (U.S. 1977)

. . . . § 218.01 (3) (f) (1957). Congress has also taken remedial action. . . .

In BOMB DISASTER AT ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA, ON APRIL, 438 F. Supp. 769 (E.D. Cal. 1977)

. . . subsequent application of state law is succinctly stated at Jayson, Handling Federal Tort Claims, § 218.01 . . .

BOATLAND, INC. L. v. BRUNSWICK CORPORATION,, 558 F.2d 818 (6th Cir. 1977)

. . . . § 218.01(3)(a)17 [the motor vehicle dealership law], which is a statutory program similar to the Wisconsin . . .

C. COPLEY v. RONA ENTERPRISES, INC. Co., 423 F. Supp. 979 (S.D. Ohio 1976)

. . . 20%) percent of the cash sales price or $500 (whichever is lower) except in Wisconsin in which Sec. 218.01 . . .

SCHRANK, v. BLISS,, 412 F. Supp. 28 (M.D. Fla. 1976)

. . . VIII, Sec. 1(a) and (b); Fla.Stat. chs. 124-25, 128-29; and Secs. 218.01-06 (1971); 218.20-.26 (Supp.1975 . . .

MOSSNER PORSCHE AUDI, INC. v. VOLKSWAGENWERK, A. G., 397 F. Supp. 71 (E.D. Wis. 1975)

. . . action alleges that the defendants have engaged in conduct amounting to unconscionable practices under § 218.01 . . . statutes and requests this court to award the plaintiff treble damages and attorneys’ fees pursuant to § 218.01 . . . primary jurisdiction require that the initial determination of whether unconscionable practices under § 218.01 . . . Section 218.01(9), which provides for civil damages, reads as follows: “Any licensee suffering pecuniary . . . court has not required, or even suggested, that courts should abstain from making determinations of § 218.01 . . .

In SLOAN,, 285 F. Supp. 1 (N.D. Ohio 1968)

. . . . § 69-631; Wisconsin Statutes § 218.01. . . .

PERRIN MARTIN, INC. v. UNITED STATES M. M., 233 F. Supp. 1016 (E.D. Va. 1964)

. . . It deducted back charges totaling $218.01, leaving a balance of $2,531.99, which it deposited in the . . .

McGOWAN v. MARYLAND, 366 U.S. 420 (U.S. 1961)

. . . Ann., 1961 Supp., § 218.01 (3) (a) 21. . . .

A. F. L. MOTORS, INC. a v. CHRYSLER MOTORS CORPORATION, a, 183 F. Supp. 56 (E.D. Wis. 1960)

. . . Plaintiff is relying on Section 218.01(3) (a), subds. 16 and 17 of the Wisconsin Statutes. . . . Section 218.01(3) (a), subd. 16 makes it illegal for a motor vehicle manufacturer to attempt to induce . . .

E. L. BOWEN AND COMPANY, a v. AMERICAN MOTORS SALES CORPORATION, HUDSON MOTOR DIVISION,, 153 F. Supp. 42 (E.D. Va. 1957)

. . . The court held, however, that the Wisconsin statute (218.01(3) (a), subd. 17) enacted July 14,1937, did . . .

STATE OF FLORIDA J. TOM WATSON, v. THE CRUMMER COMPANY, a, 153 Fla. 640 (Fla. 1943)

. . . Legislature had authorized municipalities to avail themselves of the benefits of the said Act, Section 218.01 . . .

BUGGS v. FORD MOTOR CO., 113 F.2d 618 (7th Cir. 1940)

. . . Is the Wisconsin statute (Wis.Stats. 218.01 (3) (a) 17) valid? Is it retroactive? 2. . . .