MICHIGAN VEHICLE CODE
Act 300 of 1949
257.609 Traffic control devices; placement and maintenance; restrictions; county road commission, permission, costs.
Sec. 609.
(1) The state transportation department shall place or require to be placed, and maintain or require to be maintained, upon all state highways traffic control devices as it considers necessary to indicate and carry out the provisions of this chapter or to regulate, warn, or guide traffic. A traffic control device placed and maintained under this subsection shall conform to the most current Michigan manual on uniform traffic control devices.
(2) A local authority shall not place or maintain a traffic control device upon a trunk line highway under the jurisdiction of the state transportation department, except by the latter's permission, or upon a county road without the permission of the county road commission having jurisdiction over that road. With the approval of the state transportation department, the board of county road commissioners of a county, at its option, may install and maintain traffic control devices conforming to the Michigan manual on uniform traffic control devices if the cost would be less than that estimated by the state transportation department and bill the state transportation department for its share of the cost of installation.
History: 1949, Act 300, Eff. Sept. 23, 1949 ;-- Am. 1953, Act 76, Eff. Oct. 2, 1953 ;-- Am. 1968, Act 98, Imd. Eff. June 7, 1968 ;-- Am. 2016, Act 448, Eff. Jan. 5, 2018
Notes of Decisions
Carr v. City of Lansing, 674 N.W.2d 168 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 2× “But the evidence plaintiffs submitted established that defendant took such action only after meeting with an mdot traffic and safety engineer in conjunction with other action both mdot and defendant proposed to take with respect to the intersection. So, defendant’s placing a…”
Robinson Twp. v. Ottawa Cnty. Bd. of Road Commissioners, 319 N.W.2d 589 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 3× “However, the trial court then found that under authority of MCL 257.609(b); MSA 9.2309(b), which precludes local units of government from posting signs without permission of the board of road commissioners, the county might properly refuse to post signs for an unreasonable…”
City of Trenton v. Wayne Cnty. Bd. of Road Commissioners, 323 N.W.2d 340 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 3× “The trial court held: "[T]he actions of the City of Trenton in having placed and maintained traffic control devices upon West Jefferson Avenue, a county road within the jurisdiction of the defendant County Board of Road Commissioners, without the permission of and over the…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.609(a) — 1 case
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.609(b) — 3 cases
Carr v. City of Lansing, 674 N.W.2d 168 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004).
“But the evidence plaintiffs submitted established that defendant took such action only after meeting with an mdot traffic and safety engineer in conjunction with other action both mdot and defendant proposed to take with respect to the intersection. So, defendant’s placing a…”
Robinson Twp. v. Ottawa Cnty. Bd. of Road Commissioners, 319 N.W.2d 589 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982).
“However, the trial court then found that under authority of MCL 257.609(b); MSA 9.2309(b), which precludes local units of government from posting signs without permission of the board of road commissioners, the county might properly refuse to post signs for an unreasonable…”
City of Trenton v. Wayne Cnty. Bd. of Road Commissioners, 323 N.W.2d 340 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982).
“The trial court held: "[T]he actions of the City of Trenton in having placed and maintained traffic control devices upon West Jefferson Avenue, a county road within the jurisdiction of the defendant County Board of Road Commissioners, without the permission of and over the…”
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.