Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 252 / Act 106 of 1972
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 252.301 (2026)

Short title.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

HIGHWAY ADVERTISING ACT OF 1972


Act 106 of 1972


252.301 Short title.

Sec. 1.

    This act shall be known and may be cited as the “highway advertising act of 1972”.

History: 1972, Act 106, Imd. Eff. Mar. 31, 1972

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1979–2023 · leading case: Adams Outdoor Advert., Inc v. City of Holland, 625 N.W.2d 377 (Mich. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Adams Outdoor Advert., Inc v. City of Holland, 625 N.W.2d 377 (Mich. 2001). “8 Plaintiffs complaint also included a claim that the Highway Advertising Act (haa), MCL 252.301 et seq.-, MSA 9.391(101) et seq.”
Hucul Advert., LLC v. Charter Twp. of Gaines, 748 F.3d 273 (6th Cir. 2014). “First, Hucul points out that the Michigan Highway Advertising Act (“MHAA”), Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 252.301 -.323, allows for digital billboards within 1,000 feet of each other.”
Lamar Advert. Co. v. Twp. of Elmira, 328 F. Supp. 2d 725 (E.D. Mich. 2004). · cites it 2× “The statute referenced in the ordinance, Public Act 106 of 1972, is Michigan’s Highway Advertising Act of 1972 (MHAA), codified at Mich. Comp. Laws § 252.301 , et seq. This legislation was enacted primarily to prohibit tobacco advertisements on billboards.”
Adams Outdoor Advert., Inc v. Canton Charter Twp., 711 N.W.2d 391 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “Since 2001, the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) has insisted that plaintiff obtain permits under the Highway Advertising Act, MCL 252.301 et seq., for its billboards on the property and required plaintiff to obtain permission from the owner of the property as a…”
Adams Outdoor Advert., Inc v. City of Holland, 600 N.W.2d 339 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999). “” Thereafter, plaintiff filed the present action in the Allegan Circuit Court.”
Homer Twp. v. Billboards by Johnson, Inc, 708 N.W.2d 737 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “In this interlocutory appeal, we granted defendant leave to appeal a partial grant of summary disposition, in which the trial court held that the Highway Advertising Act (HAA), MCL 252.301 et seq., did not preempt two of plaintiffs billboard ordinances.”
Oshtemo Charter Twp. v. Cent. Advert. Co., 336 N.W.2d 823 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983). “Central Advertising answered, claiming, inter alia, that local regulation of outdoor signs was pre-empted by the Highway Advertising Act (HAA), MCL 252.301 et seq.; MSA 9.391(101) et seq.”
Cent. Advert. Co. v. St Joseph Twp., 337 N.W.2d 15 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983). “Plaintiff initiated the present action for the purpose of having defendant’s sign *551 ordinance declared illegal under the Highway Advertising Act, MCL 252.301 et seq.; MSA 9.391(101) et seq.”
Lamar Advert. Co. v. Charter Twp. of Clinton, 241 F. Supp. 2d 793 (E.D. Mich. 2003). · cites it 2× “the Highway Advertising Act, Mich. Comp. Laws § 252.301 et seq. Plaintiffs state law claims are properly before this Court because all of the requirements of diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.”
Dingeman Advert., Inc v. Twp. of Saginaw, 285 N.W.2d 440 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 2× “The trial court, after hearing arguments, held that the zoning ordinance relied on by the defendants was preempted by the Highway Advertising Act, MCL 252.301 et seq.; MSA 9.391(101) et seq.”
Int'l Outdoor Inc v. City of Livonia (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “To demonstrate that Michigan law recognizes billboard advertising as a legal and legitimate land use, plaintiff relies on § 3 of the Highway Advertising Act of 1972 (“HAA”), MCL 252.301 et seq., which provides: To improve and enhance scenic beauty consistent with section 131 of…”
Outfront Media LLC v. Dep't of Transp. (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “However, Outfront Media sought judicial review of the ALJ’s decision, and the circuit court reversed the decision of the ALJ, ordering MDOT to issue a digital permit to Outfront Media.”
Show all 19 citing cases →
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.