28-751. Required position and method of turning
The driver of a vehicle intending to turn shall do so as follows:
1. Right turns. Both the approach for a right turn and a right turn shall be made as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway. The driver of a vehicle or combination of vehicles with a total length of at least forty feet or a total width of at least ten feet may deviate to the extent necessary from the lane into which the driver is making a right turn in a manner that avoids contact with another person or vehicle.
2. Left turns. The driver of a vehicle intending to turn left shall approach the turn in the extreme left-hand lane lawfully available to traffic moving in the direction of travel of the vehicle. If practicable the driver shall make the left turn from the left of the center of the intersection and shall make the turn to the left lane immediately available for the driver's direction of traffic. The driver of a vehicle or combination of vehicles with a total length of at least forty feet or a total width of at least ten feet may deviate to the extent necessary from the lane into which the driver is making a left turn in a manner that avoids contact with another person or vehicle.
3. The director or local authorities in their respective jurisdictions may cause markers, buttons or signs to be placed and may require and direct that a different course from that specified in this section be traveled by vehicles turning at an intersection. When markers, buttons or signs are so placed, a driver of a vehicle shall not turn a vehicle other than as directed and required by the markers, buttons or signs.
4. Two-way left turn lanes. If a special lane for making left turns by drivers proceeding in opposite directions has been indicated by official traffic control devices:
(a) A driver shall not make a left turn from any other lane.
(b) A driver shall not drive a vehicle in the lane except if preparing for or making a left turn from or into the roadway or if preparing for or making a u-turn if otherwise permitted by law.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases, 1963–2020 · leading case:
State v. Bouck, 241 P.3d 524 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
State v. Bouck, 241 P.3d 524 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 38× “” ¶ 7 Bouek argues that because the statute prescribes locations on a “roadway” for a motorist making a right turn, it does not apply to a motorist turning from a private driveway because a driveway is not a roadway.”
Trojanovich v. Marshall, 388 P.2d 149 (Ariz. 1963).
· cites it 4× “Appellant, in making his turn, had to stop and wait for a pedestrian, who was walking on the sidewalk, to cross the driveway area.”
Ray v. Starr, 539 P.2d 549 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1975).
· cites it 6× “A.R.S. § 28-751 provides: “The driver of a vehicle intending to turn at an intersection shall do so as follows : 1.”
State v. Peters (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 18× “On appeal, Peters argues that A.R.S. § 28-751(4)(b) is unconstitutionally vague, thereby denying him due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.”
Bergmann Precision, Inc. v. Indus. Comm'n, 15 P.3d 276 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 28-751(2) (1998). . Because we find a traveling worker’s situation different from that of a fixed site worker, we are unpersuaded by the fixed site cases upon which the Fund relies.”
State of Arizona v. Christopher Cruz Cuevas, 153 P.3d 414 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 18× “” Central to the court’s conclusion was its determination that the latter maneuver was “neither prescribed, nor prohibited by A.R.S. § 28-751, or any other statute known to the Court.”
State v. Malin (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 4× “” Second, Malin’s wide turn onto Highway 95 violated A.R.S. § 28-751(1). Third, the court found that Malin’s failure to signal and his wide turn provided reasonable suspicion to stop him for driving while impaired in violation of A.”
Flynn v. Superior Court of Maricopa Cnty., 414 P.2d 438 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1966).
“The facts as are necessary for a determination of this matter are as follows: Petitioner John Patrick Flynn was stopped by a police officer of the City of Phoenix on or about 25 September, 1965, and issued a traffic complaint for violation of Section 28-751, subsec. 1 as…”
State v. Levesque (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 2× “However, unlike the circumstances in Livingston where the driver committed a single, “isolated and minor breach of the shoulder line” while “otherwise dr[iving] safely on a dangerous, curved road,” Livingston, at 148, ¶ 12, here, while making a left hand turn, Levesque drove his…”
Steed v. Cuevas, 540 P.2d 166 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1975).
“IN GIVING THE JURY AN INSTRUCTION ON § 28-754(a) and (b) OF THE ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES? The jury was instructed: “No person shall turn a vehicle at an intersection unless the vehicle is in proper position upon the roadway as required in Section 28-751 or turn a vehicle to…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-751(1) — 5 cases
State v. Bouck, 241 P.3d 524 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
“” ¶ 7 Bouek argues that because the statute prescribes locations on a “roadway” for a motorist making a right turn, it does not apply to a motorist turning from a private driveway because a driveway is not a roadway.”
Trojanovich v. Marshall, 388 P.2d 149 (Ariz. 1963).
“Appellant, in making his turn, had to stop and wait for a pedestrian, who was walking on the sidewalk, to cross the driveway area.”
Ray v. Starr, 539 P.2d 549 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1975).
“A.R.S. § 28-751 provides: “The driver of a vehicle intending to turn at an intersection shall do so as follows : 1.”
State v. Malin (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
“” Second, Malin’s wide turn onto Highway 95 violated A.R.S. § 28-751(1). Third, the court found that Malin’s failure to signal and his wide turn provided reasonable suspicion to stop him for driving while impaired in violation of A.”
State of Arizona v. Christopher Cruz Cuevas, 153 P.3d 414 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
“” Central to the court’s conclusion was its determination that the latter maneuver was “neither prescribed, nor prohibited by A.R.S. § 28-751, or any other statute known to the Court.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-751(2) — 4 cases
State v. Bouck, 241 P.3d 524 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
“” ¶ 7 Bouek argues that because the statute prescribes locations on a “roadway” for a motorist making a right turn, it does not apply to a motorist turning from a private driveway because a driveway is not a roadway.”
Bergmann Precision, Inc. v. Indus. Comm'n, 15 P.3d 276 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000).
“See A.R.S. § 28-751(2) (1998). . Because we find a traveling worker’s situation different from that of a fixed site worker, we are unpersuaded by the fixed site cases upon which the Fund relies.”
State of Arizona v. Christopher Cruz Cuevas, 153 P.3d 414 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
“” Central to the court’s conclusion was its determination that the latter maneuver was “neither prescribed, nor prohibited by A.R.S. § 28-751, or any other statute known to the Court.”
State v. Levesque (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020).
“However, unlike the circumstances in Livingston where the driver committed a single, “isolated and minor breach of the shoulder line” while “otherwise dr[iving] safely on a dangerous, curved road,” Livingston, at 148, ¶ 12, here, while making a left hand turn, Levesque drove his…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-751(4)(b) — 1 case
State v. Peters (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
“On appeal, Peters argues that A.R.S. § 28-751(4)(b) is unconstitutionally vague, thereby denying him due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.”
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.