Michigan Compiled Laws
Mich. Comp. Laws § 247.651a (2026)
State trunk line highway system; construction, maintenance, improvement; control of state highway commissioner; change in line of road.
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
STATE TRUNK LINE HIGHWAY SYSTEM
Act 51 of 1951
247.651a State trunk line highway system; construction, maintenance, improvement; control of state highway commissioner; change in line of road.
Sec. 1a.
All state trunk line highways now or hereafter established as provided by law, shall be constructed, maintained and improved in accordance with the provisions of this act under the direction, supervision and control of the state highway commissioner. The commissioner shall make surveys and proper plans and specifications and take charge of the construction and maintenance of the state trunk line highways. For the purpose of securing a more direct and favorable location, minor changes in the line of any road may be made when, in the judgment of the state highway commissioner, the changes make for the safety of public travel.
History: Add. 1957, Act 262, Eff. July 1, 1957
PopularName Notes:
McNitt ActPopularName Notes:
Michigan Transportation Fund ActNotes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases, 1959–1978 · leading case: Thomas v. Dep't of State Highways, 247 N.W.2d 530 (Mich. 1976).
Thomas v. Dep't of State Highways, 247 N.W.2d 530 (Mich. 1976). “MCLA 247.651a; MSA 9.1097(1a), imposes the responsibility for state trunkline highway construction and maintenance upon the State Highway Commission which is granted jurisdiction over all state trunkline highways by Const 1963, art 5, § 28.”
Greenfield Constr. Co. v. Dep't of State Highways, 261 N.W.2d 718 (Mich. 1978). “[16] See MCLA 247.651a, 247.651b, 247.807(j); MSA 9.”
Jourdin v. City of Flint, 94 N.W.2d 900 (Mich. 1959). “651 and CL 1948, § 247.651a, as added by PA 1957, No 262 (Stat Ann 1958 Rev §§ 9.”
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.