MICHIGAN VEHICLE CODE
Act 300 of 1949
257.610 Traffic control devices; placement and maintenance by local authorities and county road commissions; compliance with manual; failure to comply with statutory provisions; sale, purchase, or manufacture of devices.
Sec. 610.
(1) Local authorities and county road commissions in their respective jurisdictions shall place and maintain the traffic control devices upon highways under their jurisdiction that they consider necessary to indicate and to carry out the provisions of this chapter or local traffic ordinances or to regulate, warn, or guide traffic. All traffic control devices shall conform to the Michigan manual on uniform traffic control devices.
(2) The state transportation department shall withhold from any incorporated village, city, or county that fails to comply with sections 606, 608, 609, 612, and 613, the share of fuel and vehicle tax revenue that would otherwise be due the incorporated village, city, or county under section 10 of 1951 PA 51, MCL 247.660. Notice of failure to comply, and 1 year's time to comply after notice, shall first be given.
(3) A person, firm, or corporation shall not sell or offer for sale to local authorities and local authorities shall not purchase or manufacture any traffic control device that does not conform to the Michigan manual on uniform traffic control devices, except with the permission of the director of the state transportation department.
History: 1949, Act 300, Eff. Sept. 23, 1949 ;-- Am. 1955, Act 245, Eff. Oct. 14, 1955 ;-- Am. 1972, Act 72, Imd. Eff. Mar. 9, 1972 ;-- Am. 2016, Act 448, Eff. Jan. 5, 2018
Notes of Decisions
Mullins v. Wayne Cnty., 168 N.W.2d 246 (Mich. Ct. App. 1969).
· cites it 12× “When Michigan adopted the uniform traffic signal control statute (MCLA § 257.610 [Stat Ann 1960 Rev § 9.2310]), which authorizes the erection of traffic-control devices in the discretion of the sign-erecting authority, it did not thereby relieve the road authority of the duty…”
Marchyok v. City of Ann Arbor, 679 N.W.2d 703 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 6× “Defendant moved for summary disposition, relying on the doctrine of governmental immunity. The trial court granted defendant's motion for summary disposition on the basis of governmental immunity.”
Tuttle v. Dep't of State Highways, 243 N.W.2d 244 (Mich. 1976).
· cites it 2× “2310]), which authorized the erection of traffic control devices in the discretion of the sign-erecting authority, it did not thereby relieve the road authority of the duty imposed over 75 years ago to construct and keep the road reasonably safe and convenient for public travel.”
O'HARE v. City of Detroit, 106 N.W.2d 538 (Mich. 1960).
“We do not, however, deal in the instant case with any challenge to the discretionary right of the city to erect or not to erect, or to remove, stop signs by legislative enactment (see CLS 1956, § 257.610 [Stat Ann 1960 Eev § 9.2310]). The current declarations are based upon a…”
Mullins v. Wayne Cnty., 144 N.W.2d 829 (Mich. Ct. App. 1966).
· cites it 2× “) and CLS 1961, § 257.610 (Stat Ann 1960 Eev § 9.2310), as to the duty of the county board of road commissioners, which provides in part as follows: “(a) Local authorities and county road commissions in their respective jurisdictions shall place and maintain such traffic-control…”
Fraley v. City of Flint, 221 N.W.2d 394 (Mich. Ct. App. 1974).
“Defendant claims that the traffic light cycle was set to fall within the recommended range of time intervals for amber lights found in statute MCLA 257.610; MSA 9.2310, and in the Michigan Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.”
Mullins v. Wayne Cnty., 156 N.W.2d 546 (Mich. 1968).
· cites it 5× “121), 2 to keep its highways in reasonable repair and that its failure to erect signs pursuant to the discretionary statutory power granted by CLS 1961, § 257.610 (Stat Ann 1960 Rev § 9.2310) 3 could not be the basis for imposing liability upon the county for injuries resulting…”
Martin v. Ann Arbor R.R. Co., 255 N.W.2d 763 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977).
“MCLA 257.610(a); MSA 9.2310(a). The state manual provides, at page 16, that "Signs shall be installed at maximum intervals of 1/2 mile within any Speed Control Zone to confirm the speed of that zone”.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.610(a) — 3 cases
Marchyok v. City of Ann Arbor, 679 N.W.2d 703 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004).
“Defendant moved for summary disposition, relying on the doctrine of governmental immunity. The trial court granted defendant's motion for summary disposition on the basis of governmental immunity.”
Martin v. Ann Arbor R.R. Co., 255 N.W.2d 763 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977).
“MCLA 257.610(a); MSA 9.2310(a). The state manual provides, at page 16, that "Signs shall be installed at maximum intervals of 1/2 mile within any Speed Control Zone to confirm the speed of that zone”.”
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.