Ky. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 177
Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 177.841 (2026)

Billboard advertising prohibited -- Exceptions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KY-LRCapps.legislature.ky.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) Except as otherwise provided in KRS 177.830 to 177.890, the erection or maintenance of any advertising device upon or within six hundred sixty (660) feet of the right-of-way of any interstate highway or federal-aid primary highway is prohibited.

(2) The erection or maintenance of any advertising device located outside of an urban area and beyond six hundred sixty (660) feet of the right-of-way which is legible and/or identifiable from the main traveled way of any interstate highway or federal-aid primary highway is prohibited.

(3) This section shall not apply to directional or other official signs or signals erected by the state or any other public agency having jurisdiction. Effective:March 18, 2021 History: Repealed, reenacted, and amended 2021 Ky. Acts ch. 44, sec. 2, effective March 18, 2021. -- Created 1976 Ky. Acts ch. 80, sec. 3, effective March 29, 1976.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1977–2000 · leading case: Diemer v. Commonwealth, Transp. Cabinet, Dep't of Highways, 786 S.W.2d 861 (Ky. 1990).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Diemer v. Commonwealth, Transp. Cabinet, Dep't of Highways, 786 S.W.2d 861 (Ky. 1990). · cites it 5× “In its present form, KRS 177.841(2), the principal statute involved in this litigation, provides as follows: “(2) The erection or maintenance of any advertising device located outside of an urban area and beyond six hundred and sixty (660) feet of the right-of-way which is…”
Whiteco Metrocom Corp. v. Commonwealth Transp. Cabinet, Dep't of Highways, 14 S.W.3d 24 (Ky. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 8× “I view such regulatory exception as directly repugnant to the plain language of KRS 177.841 and as clearly beyond the scope of power delegated to the Cabinet by the Billboard Act.”
United Sign, Ltd. v. Commonwealth, 44 S.W.3d 794 (Ky. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “To pro *797 mote those objectives, the General Assembly enacted KRS 177.841, subsection one which provides that: “[ejxcept as otherwise provided in KRS 177.”
Commonwealth, Transp. Cabinet, Dep't of Highways v. G.L.G., Inc., 937 S.W.2d 709 (Ky. 1997). · cites it 2× “*711 It is undisputed that the billboard, located within 660 feet of the interstate highway, is illegal and prohibited by KRS 177.841, unless the sign comes within one of the exceptions provided in KRS 177.”
Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp. v. Cent. Kentucky Angus Ass'n, 555 S.W.2d 627 (Ky. Ct. App. 1977). “Highway # 27 in Garrard County fall within the prohibition of advertising devices set forth in KRS 177.841. The billboards in question advertised to the motoring public: (1) the location of Central Kentucky Angus Association and the date of its next sale; (2) the location of the…”
Commonwealth, Transp. Cabinet, Dep't of Highways v. Express Mart, Inc., 759 S.W.2d 600 (Ky. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 4× “This is an appeal from a judgment of the Rowan Circuit Court which dismissed an action by the appellants to enforce the provisions of KRS 177.841(2) against the ap-pellees based upon a finding that the statute had been selectively enforced in violation of the federal and state…”
Commonwealth, Transp. Cabinet, Dep't of Highways v. Tri-State Poster Advert. Co., 697 S.W.2d 169 (Ky. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 3× “KRS 177.841, as enacted in 1976, 1 provides in relevant part as follows: 177.”
Commonwealth, Transp. Cabinet, Dep't of Highways v. Wayfara, Inc., 840 S.W.2d 211 (Ky. Ct. App. 1992). “2d 861 (1990) in which the Kentucky Supreme Court held that KRS 177.841(2), governing the erection of “any advertising device located outside of an urban area,” was void for vagueness because the term “urban area” was open to an infinite variety of interpretations, and KRS 177.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 177.841(1) — 1 case
Whiteco Metrocom Corp. v. Commonwealth Transp. Cabinet, Dep't of Highways, 14 S.W.3d 24 (Ky. Ct. App. 1999). “I view such regulatory exception as directly repugnant to the plain language of KRS 177.841 and as clearly beyond the scope of power delegated to the Cabinet by the Billboard Act.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 177.841(2) — 4 cases
Diemer v. Commonwealth, Transp. Cabinet, Dep't of Highways, 786 S.W.2d 861 (Ky. 1990). “In its present form, KRS 177.841(2), the principal statute involved in this litigation, provides as follows: “(2) The erection or maintenance of any advertising device located outside of an urban area and beyond six hundred and sixty (660) feet of the right-of-way which is…”
Whiteco Metrocom Corp. v. Commonwealth Transp. Cabinet, Dep't of Highways, 14 S.W.3d 24 (Ky. Ct. App. 1999). “I view such regulatory exception as directly repugnant to the plain language of KRS 177.841 and as clearly beyond the scope of power delegated to the Cabinet by the Billboard Act.”
Commonwealth, Transp. Cabinet, Dep't of Highways v. Express Mart, Inc., 759 S.W.2d 600 (Ky. Ct. App. 1988). “This is an appeal from a judgment of the Rowan Circuit Court which dismissed an action by the appellants to enforce the provisions of KRS 177.841(2) against the ap-pellees based upon a finding that the statute had been selectively enforced in violation of the federal and state…”
Commonwealth, Transp. Cabinet, Dep't of Highways v. Wayfara, Inc., 840 S.W.2d 211 (Ky. Ct. App. 1992). “2d 861 (1990) in which the Kentucky Supreme Court held that KRS 177.841(2), governing the erection of “any advertising device located outside of an urban area,” was void for vagueness because the term “urban area” was open to an infinite variety of interpretations, and KRS 177.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 177.841(2)(a) — 1 case
Whiteco Metrocom Corp. v. Commonwealth Transp. Cabinet, Dep't of Highways, 14 S.W.3d 24 (Ky. Ct. App. 1999). “I view such regulatory exception as directly repugnant to the plain language of KRS 177.841 and as clearly beyond the scope of power delegated to the Cabinet by the Billboard Act.”
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.