MICHIGAN VEHICLE CODE
Act 300 of 1949
257.637 Overtaking and passing on right of another vehicle or bicycle; conditions; violation as civil infraction.
Sec. 637.
(1) The driver of a vehicle may overtake and pass upon the right of another vehicle only if 1 or more of the following conditions exist:
(a) When the vehicle overtaken is making or about to make a left turn.
(b) Upon a street or highway with unobstructed pavement not occupied by parked vehicles of sufficient width for 2 or more lines of moving vehicles in each direction and when the vehicles are moving in substantially continuous lanes of traffic.
(c) Upon a 1-way street, or upon a roadway on which traffic is restricted to 1 direction of movement, where the roadway is free from obstructions and of sufficient width for 2 or more lines of moving vehicles and when the vehicles are moving in substantially continuous lanes of traffic.
(2) The driver of a vehicle may overtake and pass another vehicle upon the right only under conditions permitting the overtaking and passing in safety. The driver of a vehicle shall not overtake and pass another vehicle upon the right by driving off the pavement or main-traveled portion of the roadway.
(3) The driver of a vehicle overtaking a bicycle proceeding in the same direction shall, when otherwise permitted by this section, pass at a distance of 3 feet to the right of that bicycle or, if it is impracticable to pass the bicycle at a distance of 3 feet to the right, at a safe distance to the right of that bicycle at a safe speed.
(4) A person who violates this section is responsible for a civil infraction.
History: 1949, Act 300, Eff. Sept. 23, 1949 ;-- Am. 1978, Act 510, Eff. Aug. 1, 1979 ;-- Am. 1979, Act 66, Eff. Aug. 1, 1979 ;-- Am. 2018, Act 280, Eff. Oct. 16, 2018
Compiler's Notes:
Enacting section 1 of Act 342 of 2018 provides:
"Enacting section 1. Enacting section 1 of 2018 PA 280 is repealed."
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
9
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1975–2024 · leading case:
Yono v. Dep't of Transp., 885 N.W.2d 445 (Mich. 2016).
Yono v. Dep't of Transp., 885 N.W.2d 445 (Mich. 2016).
· cites it 10× “11 The dissent disputed the majority’s contention “that the parallel parking lane at issue was designed to be used, when unoccupied, to travel around stopped or slow vehicles in the travel lane or as a thoroughfare because those contentions are not supported by the record” and…”
Grimes v. Dep't of Transp., 715 N.W.2d 275 (Mich. 2006).
· cites it 4× “MCL 257.637. Gregg is not the sort of case that fosters a reliance interest or shapes future individual conduct.”
Yono v. Dep't of Transp., 829 N.W.2d 249 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 7× “MCL 257.637, which the majority cites, discusses permissible circumstances in which to overtake and pass moving vehicles on the right and states in pertinent part that “[t]he driver of a vehicle shall not overtake and pass another vehicle upon the right by driving off the .”
Gregg v. State High. Dep't, 458 N.W.2d 619 (Mich. 1990).
· cites it 2× “" However, that does not say or mean that the shoulder is designed for "vehicular travel.”
Paul v. Wayne Cnty. Dep't of Pub. Serv., 722 N.W.2d 922 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006).
“Indeed, to do so would *623 be a violation of the [Michigan Vehicle Code], MCL 257.637. Gregg is not the sort of case that fosters a reliance interest or shapes future individual conduct.”
Bugar v. Staiger, 238 N.W.2d 404 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975).
“Concerning the claim against defendant Bron-ner, plaintiffs contend that the trial judge committed reversible error in failing to instruct the jury on the "passing-on-the-r ight’ ’ statute, MCLA 257.637(b); MSA 9.2337(b). The statute reads: "The driver of a vehicle may overtake…”
Carol Pitts v. City of Dearborn, No. 336530 (Mich. Ct. App. June 21, 2018).
· cites it 4× “Subsection (3) of MCL 257.637 states that a violation of MCL 257.”
David Holt v. Detroit Dep't of Transp., No. 357329 (Mich. Ct. App. Aug. 18, 2022).
· cites it 3× “637(1)(a), and the vehicles in the westbound travels lane on Fort Street were not “moving in a substantially continuous lanes of traffic,” MCL 257.”
D Est. of William Howard McDuffie-connor v. Scott M Neal, No. 358870 (Mich. Ct. App. Feb. 8, 2024).
“But a reasonable juror could also conclude that Neal was operating with malfunctioning turn signals (as evidenced by the MSP report), failed to perform a pre-trip inspection and then testified falsely about conducting an inspection (as suggested by the MSP reports inspection of…”
Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.637(1)(a): 1 case
David Holt v. Detroit Dep't of Transp., No. 357329 (Mich. Ct. App. Aug. 18, 2022).
“637(1)(a), and the vehicles in the westbound travels lane on Fort Street were not “moving in a substantially continuous lanes of traffic,” MCL 257.”
Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.637(1)(b): 2 cases
Yono v. Dep't of Transp., 885 N.W.2d 445 (Mich. 2016).
“11 The dissent disputed the majority’s contention “that the parallel parking lane at issue was designed to be used, when unoccupied, to travel around stopped or slow vehicles in the travel lane or as a thoroughfare because those contentions are not supported by the record” and…”
David Holt v. Detroit Dep't of Transp., No. 357329 (Mich. Ct. App. Aug. 18, 2022).
“637(1)(a), and the vehicles in the westbound travels lane on Fort Street were not “moving in a substantially continuous lanes of traffic,” MCL 257.”
Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.637(2): 4 cases
Grimes v. Dep't of Transp., 715 N.W.2d 275 (Mich. 2006).
“MCL 257.637. Gregg is not the sort of case that fosters a reliance interest or shapes future individual conduct.”
Yono v. Dep't of Transp., 885 N.W.2d 445 (Mich. 2016).
“11 The dissent disputed the majority’s contention “that the parallel parking lane at issue was designed to be used, when unoccupied, to travel around stopped or slow vehicles in the travel lane or as a thoroughfare because those contentions are not supported by the record” and…”
Yono v. Dep't of Transp., 829 N.W.2d 249 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012).
“MCL 257.637, which the majority cites, discusses permissible circumstances in which to overtake and pass moving vehicles on the right and states in pertinent part that “[t]he driver of a vehicle shall not overtake and pass another vehicle upon the right by driving off the .”
Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.637(b): 1 case
Bugar v. Staiger, 238 N.W.2d 404 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975).
“Concerning the claim against defendant Bron-ner, plaintiffs contend that the trial judge committed reversible error in failing to instruct the jury on the "passing-on-the-r ight’ ’ statute, MCLA 257.637(b); MSA 9.2337(b). The statute reads: "The driver of a vehicle may overtake…”
Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.637(c)(2): 1 case
Gregg v. State High. Dep't, 458 N.W.2d 619 (Mich. 1990).
“" However, that does not say or mean that the shoulder is designed for "vehicular travel.”
Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.637(l)(a): 1 case
Yono v. Dep't of Transp., 829 N.W.2d 249 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012).
“MCL 257.637, which the majority cites, discusses permissible circumstances in which to overtake and pass moving vehicles on the right and states in pertinent part that “[t]he driver of a vehicle shall not overtake and pass another vehicle upon the right by driving off the .”
Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.637(l)(b): 2 cases
Yono v. Dep't of Transp., 885 N.W.2d 445 (Mich. 2016).
“11 The dissent disputed the majority’s contention “that the parallel parking lane at issue was designed to be used, when unoccupied, to travel around stopped or slow vehicles in the travel lane or as a thoroughfare because those contentions are not supported by the record” and…”
Yono v. Dep't of Transp., 829 N.W.2d 249 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012).
“MCL 257.637, which the majority cites, discusses permissible circumstances in which to overtake and pass moving vehicles on the right and states in pertinent part that “[t]he driver of a vehicle shall not overtake and pass another vehicle upon the right by driving off 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.