Mich. Comp. Laws § 247.852

Transfer of jurisdiction; consent required; agreement, contents; effective date.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION OVER HIGHWAYS

Act 296 of 1969

247.852 Transfer of jurisdiction; consent required; agreement, contents; effective date.

Sec. 2.

The provisions of any law to the contrary notwithstanding, a highway may not not [sic] be transferred from the jurisdiction of the state to a county, city or village or from a county to a city or village without the consent of both parties, except as provided by this act. The consent shall be evidenced by a written agreement entered into after approval by resolution of each highway authority that is party to the agreement. The agreement shall identify the effective date of the transfer of jurisdiction, the limits and general description of the highway involved, the extent of improvements and other terms and conditions mutually agreed to. The agreement may be amended, superseded or voided by consent of both parties. If the proposed transfer of jurisdiction is dependent on the future opening of a new, relocated highway and a definite effective date cannot be ascertained and agreed to at the time the agreement is entered into, the transfer shall be effective upon the opening of the new highway unless otherwise provided in the agreement.

History: 1969, Act 296, Eff. Mar. 20, 1970

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1989–2004 · leading case: Killeen v. Department of Transportation

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Killeen v. Department of Transportation (1989) mich · cites it 4× “While here highway jurisdiction was transferred by written agreement pursuant to MCL 247.852; MSA 9.393(32), it is reasonable to assume that the counties would not have agreed to the respective transfers had they been aware of a design defect.”

Sekulov v. City of Warren (2002) michctapp · cites it 2× “MCL 247.852. Because no evidence was submitted indicating that such a transfer occurred, jurisdiction rested with Macomb County.”

Acer Paradise Inc. v. Kalkaska County Road Commission (2004) michctapp “Additionally, MCL 247.852 sets forth the requirement that transfers of highway jurisdiction can occur between certain governmental entities when there is a written agreement: The provisions of any law to the contrary notwithstanding, a highway may not not [sic] be transferred…”

Acer Paradise, Inc. v. KALKASKA CTY. ROAD COMM. (2004) michctapp “Additionally, MCL 247.852 sets forth the requirement that transfers of highway jurisdiction can occur between certain governmental entities when there is a written agreement: The provisions of any law to the contrary notwithstanding, a highway may not not [sic] be transferred…”

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.