Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 247.652 (2026)

Tentative system of county primary roads; selection and certification; check and review; approval; county primary road system.

✓ 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

247.652 Tentative system of county primary roads; selection and certification; check and review; approval; county primary road system.

Sec. 2.

By December 1, 1951, a tentative system of county primary roads shall be selected by the board of county road commissioners in each county and certified to the state transportation department for its approval. Such tentative system of county primary roads shall be selected on the basis of greatest general importance to the county and shall include any such county roads then legally established and existing as such within the limits of incorporated cities and villages. Each such tentative system of county primary roads certified to the state transportation department shall be checked and reviewed under its direction. Within 6 months after receipt by the department of each such certification, the state transportation department shall approve such part of that tentative system of county primary roads as the department determines is appropriate and shall certify to that board of county road commissioners the approved portion of the tentative system and any deletions therefrom. So much of the tentative system of county primary roads of any county as is approved by the state transportation department shall constitute the county primary road system of that county for all purposes and shall be officially known as the county primary road system of that county.

History: 1951, Act 51, Eff. June 1, 1951 ;-- Am. 1982, Act 438, Eff. Jan. 1, 1983

PopularName Notes:

McNitt Act

PopularName Notes:

Michigan Transportation Fund Act

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: Austin v. City of Romulus, 300 N.W.2d 672 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Austin v. City of Romulus, 300 N.W.2d 672 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 2× “This Court stated: "MCL 247.652; MSA 9.1097(2) and MCL 247.655; MSA 9.”

Jones v. Sanilac Cnty. Road Comm'n, 342 N.W.2d 532 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “See MCL 247.652; MSA 9.1097(2). At the conclusion of the separate record testimony of Frederick Elwood, the trial judge stated: "There doesn't seem to be any question but what [sic] that in 1973 the State certified Maple *584 Grove Road at its intersection with Nichol Road as a…”

Smith v. Dep't of Transp., 403 N.W.2d 87 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “I also disagree with the Austin Court's distinguishing of Stricker, supra, on the basis that, in Stricker , a fact question existed because of conflicting affidavits as to how the highway in question had been classified pursuant to the county road certification statutes, MCL…”

Stricker v. Dep't of State Highways, 292 N.W.2d 240 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980). “MCL 247.652; MSA 9.1097(2) and MCL 247.655; MSA 9.”

William B Solomon Jr v. Sanilac Cnty. Road Comm'n (Mich. Ct. App. 2026). “See MCL 247.652, MCL 247.654. If a road is decertified, i.”

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.