Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.70 (2026)

“Traffic control devices” defined.

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

MICHIGAN VEHICLE CODE

Act 300 of 1949

257.70 “Traffic control devices” defined.

Sec. 70.

"Traffic control devices" means all signs, signals, markings, and devices not inconsistent with this act placed or erected by authority of a public body or official having jurisdiction, for the purpose of regulating, warning or guiding traffic.

History: 1949, Act 300, Eff. Sept. 23, 1949

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1973–2019 · leading case: Yono v. Dep't of Transp., 885 N.W.2d 445 (Mich. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Yono v. Dep't of Transp., 885 N.W.2d 445 (Mich. 2016). · cites it 2× “” MCL 257.70 defines “traffic control devices” as “all signs, signals, markings, and devices not inconsistent with this act placed or erected by authority of a public body or official having jurisdiction, for the purpose of regulating, warning or guiding traffic.”

Gorelick v. Dep't of State Highways, 339 N.W.2d 635 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983). “” (Emphasis added.) We would go one step further and note that, despite defendant’s assertions to the contrary, such a sign is in fact mandatory in nature in that it actually serves to regulate a motorist’s right to pass other cars.”

Mentel v. Monroe Pub. Schs., 209 N.W.2d 506 (Mich. Ct. App. 1973). “…of a public body or official having jurisdiction, for the purpose of regulating, warning or guiding traffic.” MCLA 257.70; MSA 9.1870.”

Lewis v. O'Connor (E.D. Mich. 2019). “§ 257.70, 257.611(1), 257.601a(2). Defendants state that it does not matter whether Michigan law allows officers the ability to enforce a stop sign of improper height.”

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.