The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title XXIII
MOTOR VEHICLES

Chapter 320
MOTOR VEHICLE LICENSES

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 320.642

320.642 Dealer licenses in areas previously served; procedure.—

(1) Any licensee who proposes to establish an additional motor vehicle dealership or permit the relocation of an existing dealer to a location within a community or territory where the same line-make vehicle is presently represented by a franchised motor vehicle dealer or dealers shall give written notice of its intention to the department. The notice must state:

(a) The specific location at which the additional or relocated motor vehicle dealership will be established.

(b) The date on or after which the licensee intends to be engaged in business with the additional or relocated motor vehicle dealer at the proposed location.

(c) The identity of all motor vehicle dealers who are franchised to sell the same line-make vehicle with licensed locations in the county and any contiguous county to the county where the additional or relocated motor vehicle dealer is proposed to be located.

(d) The names and addresses of the dealer-operator and principal investors in the proposed additional or relocated motor vehicle dealership.

Immediately upon receipt of the notice the department shall cause a notice to be published in the Florida Administrative Register. The published notice must state that a petition or complaint by any dealer with standing to protest pursuant to subsection (3) must be filed within 30 days following the date of publication of the notice in the Florida Administrative Register. The published notice must describe and identify the proposed dealership sought to be licensed, and the department shall cause a copy of the notice to be mailed to those dealers identified in the licensee’s notice under paragraph (c). The licensee shall pay a fee of $75 and a service charge of $2.50 for each publication. Proceeds from the fee and service charge shall be deposited into the Highway Safety Operating Trust Fund.

(2)(a) An application for a motor vehicle dealer license in any community or territory shall be denied when:

1. A timely protest is filed by a presently existing franchised motor vehicle dealer with standing to protest as defined in subsection (3); and

2. The licensee fails to show that the existing franchised dealer or dealers who register new motor vehicle retail sales or retail leases of the same line-make in the community or territory of the proposed dealership are not providing adequate representation of such line-make motor vehicles in such community or territory. The burden of proof in establishing inadequate representation shall be on the licensee.

(b) In determining whether the existing franchised motor vehicle dealer or dealers are providing adequate representation in the community or territory for the line-make, the department may consider evidence which may include, but is not limited to:

1. The impact of the establishment of the proposed or relocated dealer on the consumers, public interest, existing dealers, and the licensee; provided, however, that financial impact may only be considered with respect to the protesting dealer or dealers.

2. The size and permanency of investment reasonably made and reasonable obligations incurred by the existing dealer or dealers to perform their obligations under the dealer agreement.

3. The reasonably expected market penetration of the line-make motor vehicle for the community or territory involved, after consideration of all factors which may affect said penetration, including, but not limited to, demographic factors such as age, income, education, size class preference, product popularity, retail lease transactions, or other factors affecting sales to consumers of the community or territory.

4. Any actions by the licensees in denying its existing dealer or dealers of the same line-make the opportunity for reasonable growth, market expansion, or relocation, including the availability of line-make vehicles in keeping with the reasonable expectations of the licensee in providing an adequate number of dealers in the community or territory.

5. Any attempts by the licensee to coerce the existing dealer or dealers into consenting to additional or relocated franchises of the same line-make in the community or territory.

6. Distance, travel time, traffic patterns, and accessibility between the existing dealer or dealers of the same line-make and the location of the proposed additional or relocated dealer.

7. Whether benefits to consumers will likely occur from the establishment or relocation of the dealership which cannot be obtained by other geographic or demographic changes or expected changes in the community or territory.

8. Whether the protesting dealer or dealers are in substantial compliance with their dealer agreement.

9. Whether there is adequate interbrand and intrabrand competition with respect to said line-make in the community or territory and adequately convenient consumer care for the motor vehicles of the line-make, including the adequacy of sales and service facilities.

10. Whether the establishment or relocation of the proposed dealership appears to be warranted and justified based on economic and marketing conditions pertinent to dealers competing in the community or territory, including anticipated future changes.

11. The volume of registrations and service business transacted by the existing dealer or dealers of the same line-make in the relevant community or territory of the proposed dealership.

(3) An existing franchised motor vehicle dealer or dealers shall have standing to protest a proposed additional or relocated motor vehicle dealer when the existing motor vehicle dealer or dealers have a franchise agreement for the same line-make vehicle to be sold or serviced by the proposed additional or relocated motor vehicle dealer and are physically located so as to meet or satisfy any of the following requirements or conditions:

(a) If the proposed additional or relocated motor vehicle dealer is to be located in a county with a population of less than 300,000 according to the most recent data of the United States Census Bureau or the data of the Bureau of Economic and Business Research of the University of Florida:

1. The proposed additional or relocated motor vehicle dealer is to be located in the area designated or described as the area of responsibility, or such similarly designated area, including the entire area designated as a multiple-point area, in the franchise agreement or in any related document or commitment with the existing motor vehicle dealer or dealers of the same line-make as such agreement existed upon October 1, 1988;

2. The existing motor vehicle dealer or dealers of the same line-make have a licensed franchise location within a radius of 20 miles of the location of the proposed additional or relocated motor vehicle dealer; or

3. Any existing motor vehicle dealer or dealers of the same line-make can establish that during any 12-month period of the 36-month period preceding the filing of the licensee’s application for the proposed dealership, the dealer or its predecessor made 25 percent of its retail sales of new motor vehicles to persons whose registered household addresses were located within a radius of 20 miles of the location of the proposed additional or relocated motor vehicle dealer; provided the existing dealer is located in the same county or any county contiguous to the county where the additional or relocated dealer is proposed to be located.

(b) If the proposed additional or relocated motor vehicle dealer is to be located in a county with a population of more than 300,000 according to the most recent data of the United States Census Bureau or the data of the Bureau of Economic and Business Research of the University of Florida:

1. Any existing motor vehicle dealer or dealers of the same line-make have a licensed franchise location within a radius of 12.5 miles of the location of the proposed additional or relocated motor vehicle dealer; or

2. Any existing motor vehicle dealer or dealers of the same line-make can establish that during any 12-month period of the 36-month period preceding the filing of the licensee’s application for the proposed dealership, such dealer or its predecessor made 25 percent of its retail sales of new motor vehicles to persons whose registered household addresses were located within a radius of 12.5 miles of the location of the proposed additional or relocated motor vehicle dealer; provided such existing dealer is located in the same county or any county contiguous to the county where the additional or relocated dealer is proposed to be located.

(4) The department’s decision to deny issuance of a license under this section shall remain in effect for a period of 12 months. The department shall not issue a license for the proposed additional or relocated motor vehicle dealer until a final decision by the department is rendered determining that the application for the motor vehicle dealer’s license should be granted.

(5)(a) The opening or reopening of the same or a successor motor vehicle dealer within 12 months is not considered an additional motor vehicle dealer subject to protest within the meaning of this section, if:

1. The opening or reopening is within the same or an adjacent county and is within 2 miles of the former motor vehicle dealer location;

2. There is no dealer within 25 miles of the proposed location or the proposed location is further from each existing dealer of the same line-make than the prior location is from each dealer of the same line-make within 25 miles of the new location;

3. The opening or reopening is within 6 miles of the prior location and, if any existing motor vehicle dealer of the same line-make is located within 15 miles of the former location, the proposed location is no closer to any existing dealer of the same line-make within 15 miles of the proposed location; or

4. The opening or reopening is within 6 miles of the prior location and, if all existing motor vehicle dealers of the same line-make are beyond 15 miles of the former location, the proposed location is further than 15 miles from any existing motor vehicle dealer of the same line-make.

(b) Any other such opening or reopening shall constitute an additional motor vehicle dealer within the meaning of this section.

(c) If a motor vehicle dealer has been opened or reopened pursuant to this subsection, the licensee may not propose a motor vehicle dealer of the same line-make to be located within 4 miles of the previous location of such dealer for 2 years after the date the relocated dealership opens.

(6) When a proposed addition or relocation concerns a dealership that performs or is to perform only service, as defined in s. 320.60, and will not or does not sell or lease, as defined in s. 320.60, new motor vehicles, the proposal shall be subject to notice and protest pursuant to the provisions of this section.

(a) Standing to protest the addition or relocation of a service-only dealership shall be limited to those instances in which the applicable mileage requirement established in subparagraphs (3)(a)2. and (3)(b)1. is met.

(b) The addition or relocation of a service-only dealership shall not be subject to protest if:

1. The applicant for the service-only dealership location is an existing motor vehicle dealer of the same line-make as the proposed additional or relocated service-only dealership;

2. There is no existing dealer of the same line-make closer than the applicant to the proposed location of the additional or relocated service-only dealership; and

3. The proposed location of the additional or relocated service-only dealership is at least 7 miles from all existing motor vehicle dealerships of the same line-make, other than motor vehicle dealerships owned by the applicant.

(c) In determining whether existing franchised motor vehicle dealers are providing adequate representations in the community or territory for the line-make in question in a protest of the proposed addition or relocation of a service-only dealership, the department may consider the elements set forth in paragraph (2)(b), provided:

1. With respect to subparagraph (2)(b)1., only the impact as it relates to service may be considered;

2. Subparagraph (2)(b)3. shall not be considered;

3. With respect to subparagraph (2)(b)9., only service facilities shall be considered; and

4. With respect to subparagraph (2)(b)11., only the volume of service business transacted shall be considered.

(d) If an application for a service-only dealership is granted, the department must issue a license which permits only service, as defined in s. 320.60, and does not permit the selling or leasing, as defined in s. 320.60, of new motor vehicles. If a service-only dealership subsequently seeks to sell new motor vehicles at its location, the notice and protest provisions of this section shall apply.

(7) Measurements of the distance between proposed or existing dealer locations required by this section shall be taken from the geometric centroid of the property that encompasses all of the existing or proposed motor vehicle dealer operations.

(8) The department shall not be obligated to determine the accuracy of any distance asserted by any party in a notice submitted to it. Any dispute concerning a distance measurement asserted by a party shall be resolved by a hearing conducted in accordance with ss. 120.569 and 120.57.

History.—s. 9, ch. 70-424; s. 1, ch. 70-439; s. 3, ch. 76-168; s. 1, ch. 77-457; ss. 16, 17, ch. 80-217; ss. 2, 3, ch. 81-318; ss. 12, 20, 21, ch. 88-395; s. 4, ch. 91-429; s. 3, ch. 2003-269; s. 4, ch. 2006-183; s. 28, ch. 2009-71; s. 2, ch. 2009-93; s. 24, ch. 2013-14; s. 3, ch. 2017-187; s. 4, ch. 2023-233.

F.S. 320.642 on Google Scholar

F.S. 320.642 on Casetext

Amendments to 320.642

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 320.642

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 320.642.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

RECOVERY RACING, LLC d b a v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES, LLC d b a, 192 So. 3d 665 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . To that end, it enacted section 320.642, which outlines the procedures for obtaining a license to relocate . . . an existing dealership or establish a new dealership in an existing market. § 320.642, Fla. . . . Under section 320.642, the potential licensee must notify the Department of its intent to establish an . . . We reject Recovery Racing’s argument because section 320.642(3)(b)2. provides that an existing dealer . . . Interpreting the phrase any other way would ignore the implications of section 320.642’s location within . . .

JERRY ULM DODGE, INC. d b a d b a v. CHRYSLER GROUP LLC,, 78 So. 3d 20 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . (2010), from the notice and protest requirements in sections 320.642(l)-(3), Florida Statutes (2010) . . . . § 320.642(1). . . . . § 320.642(1)-(3). . . . . § 320.642(5). . . . (5)(a)l from the notice and protest requirements in sections 320.642(l)-(3). . . .

INTERNATIONAL TRUCK AND ENGINE CORPORATION, v. CAPITAL TRUCK, INC., 872 So. 2d 372 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . ITEC recognized that under section 320.642(8), Florida Statutes (2001), “An existing franchised motor . . . The order thus extinguished any rights claimed by Capital under section 320.642(3). . . .

ERNIE HAIRE FORD, INC. K. B. Jr. B. III, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY,, 260 F.3d 1285 (11th Cir. 2001)

. . . . § 320.642. . . .

BELLA AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC. d b a v. SOUTHEAST TOYOTA DISTRIBUTORS, INC. MS S d b a, 739 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1999)

. . . See § 320.642, Fla. Stat. (1997); Dave Zinn Toyota, Inc. v. Department of High. . . .

GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES ED MORSE CHEVROLET OF SEMINOLE, INC. v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES, 625 So. 2d 76 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . Rule 15C-1.008 is intended principally to implement section 320.642, Florida Statutes, which addresses . . . where the same line-make vehicle is presently represented by a franchised ... dealer or dealers.” § 320.642 . . . providing adequate representation of such line-make motor vehicles in such community or territory.” § 320.642 . . . Appellants argue that, because no such time limit is contained in section 320.642, the Department lacks . . . “The purpose of [section] 320.642 ... is to prevent powerful manufacturers from taking unfair advantage . . . In May 1988, appellant, after complying with the requirements of sections 320.27 and 320.642, Florida . . . The Department and the majority rely on section 320.642, Florida Statutes, which rule 15C-1.008 purports . . . Section 320.642 sets forth detailed procedures governing notice to other dealers. . . . . § 320.642, Fla.Stat. . . . .

GUS MACHADO BUICK- GMC TRUCK, INC. v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, GUS MACHADO BUICK- GMC TRUCK, INC. v. BUICK MOTOR DIVISION, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION,, 623 So. 2d 810 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . Section 320.642(1), Florida Statutes (1989), provides that once a manufacturer proposes to establish . . . Section 320.642(2)(b)(5), Fla.Stat. (1989). . . . Section 320.642(5)(a), Fla.Stat. (1989). . . .

SUPERIOR IMPORTS OF TAMPA, INC. d b a v. STACY DAVID, INC. d b a, 617 So. 2d 795 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . The undersigned ruled that neither of these subjects were covered under Section 320.642, Florida Statutes . . . Section 320.642, Florida Statutes, lists types of evidence relevant to determining the adequacy of representation . . .

BEAVERTON TOYOTA CO. INC. v. TOYOTA MOTOR DISTRIBUTORS, INC. a, 815 F. Supp. 1376 (D. Or. 1993)

. . . The Florida statute at issue states: 320.642 Dealer licenses in areas previously served. . . . In affirming the Director’s determination that Section 320.642 is not applicable, the Florida Supreme . . .

COLONIAL PONTIAC, INC. v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION PONTIAC MOTORS DIVISION,, 614 So. 2d 1204 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . However, because it was not relevant to the proceedings below, conducted pursuant to section 320.642, . . .

BRAMAN CADILLAC, INC. v. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES, STATE OF FLORIDA, WWW d b a BRAMAN CADILLAC, INC. v. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES, STATE OF FLORIDA,, 584 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . Braman asserts that it is entitled to standing under Sections 320.642, 320.699, 320.6992 and 120.57, . . . Section 320.642(3)(b), Florida Statutes (Supp.1988), states: (b) If the proposed additional or relocated . . . The hearing officer further held that Braman did not meet the standing criteria of Section 320.642(3) . . . Braman’s primary argument is that the Department erred in construing Section 320.642(3)(b) to restrict . . . We find that the Department’s holding that Braman does not qualify under the Section 320.642 standing . . .

LARRY DIMMITT CADILLAC, INC. v. SEACREST CADILLAC, INC., 558 So. 2d 136 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . Section 320.642, Florida Statutes (1987), requires denial of new dealer licenses to establish additional . . . The court further noted that the purpose behind Section 320.642, Florida Statutes, was “not to foster . . . agreement is entitled to great weight in determining the relevant “community or territory” under Section 320.642 . . .

ANTHONY ABRAHAM CHEVROLET COMPANY, INC. v. COLLECTION CHEVROLET, INC., 533 So. 2d 821 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

. . . administrative hearing alleged sufficient facts to survive the motion to dismiss, and that section 320.642 . . . The first issue is whether § 320.642, Fla.Stat. (1985), applies to dealer reloca-tions within the same . . . Nothing in the language of the statute precludes application of section 320.642 to dealer relocations . . . We hold, therefore, that § 320.642, Fla.Stat. (1985), does apply to dealer relocations within the same . . . At the time of the proceedings below section 320.642, Florida Statutes (1985), provided: The department . . .

ED MULLINAX FORD, INC. v BOLTON- HOOLEY, INC., 34 Fla. Supp. 2d 192 (Fla. Div. Admin. Hearings 1988)

. . . Ford Motor Company and Ed Mullinax Ford, Inc., for a new motor vehicle dealer license under Section 320.642 . . . Vehicles, an application for the issuance of a motor vehicle dealers license pursuant to Florida Statutes 320.642 . . . Section 320.642, Florida Statutes, establishes the following standards for acting on an application for . . . Ford has sustained the burden of proof placed upon it by Section 320.642, Florida Statutes. . . . The purpose of Section 320.642, Florida Statutes, is to prevent manufacturers from establishing more . . .

STEWART PONTIAC COMPANY, INC. v. STATE DEPARTMENT HIGHWAY SAFETY MOTOR VEHICLES, GMC,, 511 So. 2d 660 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

. . . Stewart Pontiac protested the establishment of the new dealership under the terms of § 320.642, Florida . . . The purpose of § 320.642, Florida Statutes (1985), as we understand it, is to prevent manufacturers from . . . For instance, under the clear language and intent of § 320.642, it matters not what the financial impact . . . hearing officer, and as supported by competent substantial evidence, met its burden as described by § 320.642 . . .

DAVE ZINN TOYOTA, INC. d b a v. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES,, 432 So. 2d 1320 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . Section 320.642, Florida Statutes (1981), establishes the standard for the issuance or denial of a motor . . . Finally, keeping in mind that: “[t]he purpose of § 320.642, F.S. 1973, is to prevent powerful manufacturers . . .

CORAL GABLES IMPORTED MOTORCARS, INC. v. FIAT MOTORS OF NORTH AMERICA, INC., 673 F.2d 1234 (11th Cir. 1982)

. . . Section 320.642 provides: The department shall deny an application for a motor vehicle dealer license . . . Fla.Stat. § 320.642 (1979). . . . application for a license should be granted or denied according to the criteria set forth in section 320.642 . . . It further found that the criteria for denying a license in section 320.642 had not been established. . . .

SPORTS CAR SOUTH, v. D. CALVIN, SPORTS CAR SOUTH, v. D. CALVIN,, 401 So. 2d 1134 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . Appellant requested a hearing pursuant to Section 320.642, Florida Statutes (1979), which reads: The . . . Askew, 332 So.2d 613 (Fla.1976), which holds that Section 320.642 does not apply to a replacement dealer . . . The Department acted improperly in failing to abide by Section 320.642, Florida Statutes (1979), and . . . in which the new dealership proposes to locate, advising such dealers of the provisions of Section 320.642 . . . The appellant in this matter never made an appropriate request for a hearing pursuant to Section 320.642 . . .

MILANO IMPORTED MOTORS, INC. v. ALFA ROMEO, INC. L. P., 373 So. 2d 722 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)

. . . community in which the new dealership proposes to locate advising such dealers of the provisions of Section 320.642 . . .

COULTER ELECTRONICS, INC. v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, 365 So. 2d 806 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)

. . . Section 320.642, Florida Statutes, as printed in the 1971 Florida Statutes, therefore, is no more than . . . It rebuts the prima facie effect of Section 320.642, Florida Statutes 1971.” . . .

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

. . . . §320.642 (1977); Ga. Code § 84-6610 (f) (8) (Supp. 1977); Iowa Code § 322A.4 (1977); S. D. Comp. . . . Stat. §320.642 (1977); Ga. Code § 84-6610 (f) (8) (Supp. 1977); Iowa Code § 322A.4 (1977); S. D. . . . Stat. §320.642 (1977); Ga. Code § 84^6610 (f) (8) (Supp. 1977); Tenn. . . . . §320.642 (1977); Ga. Code §§84-6610 (f)(8), (10) (Supp. 1977); Haw. Rev. . . .

SHEFFIELD, v. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES, 356 So. 2d 353 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)

. . . in which the new dealership proposes to locate, advising such dealers of the provisions of Section 320.642 . . . investigation and hold such hearing as he deems necessary to determine the questions specified under Section 320.642 . . .

KAWASAKI OF TAMPA, INC. v. D. CALVIN,, 348 So. 2d 897 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)

. . . notice the Director shall be authorized to proceed with making the determination required by Section 320.642 . . . in which the new dealership proposes to locate, advising such dealers of the provisions of Section 320.642 . . . investigation and hold such hearing as he deems necessary to determine the questions specified under Section 320.642 . . .

HOME VOLKSWAGEN, INC. a v. D. CALVIN,, 338 So. 2d 1287 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1976)

. . . that the existing dealers were not providing adequate representation in the territory pursuant to § 320.642 . . . The only response was an order setting the application for hearing pursuant to § 320.642, Fla.Stat. . . . construing the application filed by Home Volkswagen, Inc., as a new application to be processed under § 320.642 . . . It was certainly not the intent of the legislature that the provisions of § 320.642, Fla.Stat., could . . . they had failed to provide adequate representation to the licensee in the territory as required by § 320.642 . . . . § 320.642 states as follows in relation to denial of a motor vehicle dealer license: “The department . . .

SOUTHSIDE MOTOR COMPANY, ETC. v. O D. ASKEW,, 332 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 1976)

. . . Petitioners complain that, when issuing the license to Crown Ford, Respondents did not comply with Section 320.642 . . . Section 320.642, Florida Statutes, states: “320.642 Dealer licenses in areas previously served. — The . . . determined that a replacement dealer, such as Crown Ford, Inc., does not come within the purview of Section 320.642 . . .

BILL KELLEY CHEVROLET, INC. v. D. CALVIN,, 322 So. 2d 50 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1975)

. . . Petitioners urge that the Director granted the license in violation of § 320.642, F.S.1973, providing . . . We agree with the Director, General Motors and Berwick that § 320.642 does not foreclose additional Chevrolet . . . The purpose of § 320.642, F.S.1973, is to prevent powerful manufacturers from taking unfair advantage . . . Assuming as we do that the legislature in enacting § 320.642 intended “to serve the best interest of . . .

TAYLOR- SMITH CORPORATION, a d b a a d b a v. D. CALVIN, a d b a, 310 So. 2d 309 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1975)

. . . remanded to the Director of the Division of Motor Vehicles with directions to hold a hearing under Section 320.642 . . .

INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CREDIT CORPORATION v. EAST COAST TRUCK R. V. SALES, INC. EAST COAST TRUCK AND R. V. SALES, INC. v. INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY,, 387 F. Supp. 820 (S.D. Fla. 1975)

. . . Florida Statutes § 320.642 (1973). . . . Florida Statutes § 320.642. . . .

McCULLEY FORD, INC. a v. D. CALVIN,, 308 So. 2d 189 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1974)

. . . (See F.S. 320.642). . . . F.S. 320.642, Florida Statutes 1971, provides as follows: “The department shall deny an application for . . . F.S. 320.642 and part of F.S. 320.27 and F.S. 320.60, Florida Statutes 1971, were enacted into law as . . . Section 320.642, Florida Statutes, as printed in the 1971 Florida Statutes, therefore, is no more than . . . It rebuts the prima facie effect of Section 320.642, Florida Statutes 1971. . . .

BILL KELLEY CHEVROLET, INC. v. D. CALVIN,, 308 So. 2d 199 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1974)

. . . Responsibility of Dealer” is the same as, or different from, “the community or territory” referred to in F.S. 320.642 . . .

HESS MARINE, INC. v. D. CALVIN,, 296 So. 2d 114 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1974)

. . . The statute governing issuing of such a license by respondent, Section 320.642, Florida Statutes, F.S.A . . .

BARNARD RUSSELL ENTERPRISES, INC. v. D. CALVIN, P M, 296 So. 2d 115 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1974)

. . . Respondent’s findings do not meet the requirements of Section 320.642, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., for . . .

PLANTATION DATSUN, INC. a U. S. A. a v. D. CALVIN,, 275 So. 2d 26 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1973)

. . . Broward County protested the issuing of the license to operate the new dealership in accordance with § 320.642 . . . Section 320.642, as a part of the comprehensive statute on motor vehicle licenses, reads as follows: . . . A reading of Section 320.642, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., in the context of the entire chapter, shows that . . . The basis for Section 320.642 was ably expressed by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in construing a similar . . .