Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 28
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-641 (2026)

Traffic control device manual and specifications

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The director shall adopt a manual and specifications for a uniform system of traffic control devices for use on highways in this state. The uniform system shall correlate with and as far as possible conform to the system set forth in the most recent edition of the manual on uniform traffic control devices for streets and highways prepared by the national joint committee on uniform traffic control devices.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1966–2018 · leading case: Kohl v. City of Phoenix, 160 P.3d 170 (Ariz. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kohl v. City of Phoenix, 160 P.3d 170 (Ariz. 2007). · cites it 6× “[4] The Kohls argue that A.R.S. § 28-641 (1998) and Phoenix City Code 36-11(2007) require use in SIGWAR of eleven warrants identified by the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices ("MUTCD"), not just the six selected by the City.”
State v. Watson, 436 P.2d 175 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1967). · cites it 4× “” A.R.S. § 28-641. There is no question raised on appeal but what the manual admitted in evidence was the system designated by this statute, but the contention is made that the Arizona Highway Commission did not adopt this version of the manual until July of 1962, some 4 months…”
Trickel v. Rainbo Baking Co. of Phoenix, 412 P.2d 852 (Ariz. 1966). · cites it 4× “The Manual was specifically authorized by A.R.S. § 28-641 which provides: "The commission shall adopt a manual and specifications for a uniform system of traffic-control devices consistent with the provisions of this chapter for use upon highways within this state.”
City of Des Moines v. Iowa Dep't of Transp. & Iowa Transp. Comm'n, 911 N.W.2d 431 (Iowa 2018). “7/10 (West, Westlaw through P.A. 100-585 of 2018 Reg. Sess.) (granting the department of state police the authority to establish ATE systems); Md.”
Dunham v. Pima Cnty., 778 P.2d 1200 (Ariz. 1989). · cites it 2× “Testimony concerning requirements of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices: Krueper was also precluded from testifying that the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, mandated by statute, A.R.S. § 28-641, called for different and additional signalization at the…”
Alhambra Sch. Dist. v. Superior Court, 780 P.2d 401 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 4× “) The sign manual referred to in subsection (C) is the sign manual specified in A.R.S. § 28-641, the first sentence of which reads: "The Director shall adopt a manual and specifications for a uniform system of traffic control devices for use upon highways within this state.”
Serrano v. Kenneth A. Ethridge Contracting Co., 409 P.2d 757 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1966). · cites it 2× “Commission, in accordance with authority granted it by A.R.S. § 28-641, had adopted for the protection of the public a Manual of Traffic Control Devices for Highway, Construction and Maintenance Work.”
Jensen v. Maricopa Cnty., 522 P.2d 1096 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1974). · cites it 2× “Also attached to appellant’s response to the County’s motion for summary judgment were pertinent provisions of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, a document which has been adopted by the State Highway Commission pursuant to A.”
Chavez v. Pima Cnty., 477 P.2d 763 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1970). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 28-641 provides that the State Highway Commission shall: “ * * * adopt a manual and specifications for a uniform system of traffic-control devices consistent with the provisions of this chapter for use upon highways within this state.”
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.