Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 252.303 (2026)

Purpose.

✓ 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


252.303 Purpose.

Sec. 3.

    To improve and enhance scenic beauty consistent with section 131 of title 23 of the United States Code, 23 USC 131, and to limit and reduce the illegal possession and use of tobacco by minors, the legislature finds it appropriate to regulate and control outdoor advertising and outdoor advertising as it pertains to tobacco adjacent to the streets, roads, highways, and freeways within this state and that outdoor advertising is a legitimate accessory commercial use of private property, is an integral part of the marketing function and an established segment of the economy of this state.

History: 1972, Act 106, Imd. Eff. Mar. 31, 1972 ;-- Am. 1998, Act 464, Eff. Mar. 23, 1999 ;-- Am. 1998, Act 533, Eff. Mar. 23, 1999 ;-- Am. 2006, Act 448, Eff. Jan. 1, 2007

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1979–2022 · leading case: Lamar Advert. Co. v. Twp. of Elmira, 328 F. Supp. 2d 725 (E.D. Mich. 2004).
Lamar Advert. Co. v. Twp. of Elmira, 328 F. Supp. 2d 725 (E.D. Mich. 2004). · cites it 4× “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. v. East Lansing, 483 N.W.2d 38 (Mich. 1992). · cites it 2× “[51] MCL 252.303; MSA 9.391(103) recognizes that "outdoor advertising is a legitimate commercial use of private property, is an integral part of the marketing function and an established segment of the economy of this state.”
Lamar Advert. Co. v. Charter Twp. of Clinton, 241 F. Supp. 2d 793 (E.D. Mich. 2003). · cites it 5× “Mich. Comp. Laws § 252.303 (section entitled “Purpose of Act”) (emphasis added).”
Dingeman Advert., Inc v. Twp. of Saginaw, 285 N.W.2d 440 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979). “” MCL 252.303; MSA 9.391(103). The defendants’ position that the statutes are in pari materia is not persuasive.”
Int'l Outdoor Inc v. City of Livonia (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 4× “e scenic beauty consistent with section 131 of title 23 of the United States Code, 23 USC 131, and to limit and reduce the illegal possession and use of tobacco by minors, the legislature finds it appropriate to regulate and control outdoor advertising and outdoor advertising as…”
Dep't of Transp. v. Outfront Media LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “” MCL 252.303. MDOT is the agency responsible for administering the HAA.”
Dep't of Transp. v. Wolverine Sign Works (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “2919(1)(a), and the NREPA proscribes destroying vegetation without “a bill of sale from the owner,” MCL 324.52901(1). The HAA was specifically enacted to improve and enhance the scenic beauty on land adjacent to the highways and freeways.”
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.