Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.726 (2026)

Prohibitions, limitations, or truck route designations by local authorities and county road commissions; signs; written objection by adjoining township; violation as civil infraction; exception for agricultural equipment.

✓ 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

257.726 Prohibitions, limitations, or truck route designations by local authorities and county road commissions; signs; written objection by adjoining township; violation as civil infraction; exception for agricultural equipment.

Sec. 726.

(1) Subject to subsection (4), local authorities and county road commissions with respect to highways under their jurisdiction, except state trunk line highways, by ordinance or resolution, may do any of the following:

(a) Prohibit the operation of trucks or other commercial vehicles on designated highways or streets.

(b) Impose limitations as to the weight of trucks or other commercial vehicles on designated highways or streets.

(2) Any prohibitions, limitations, or truck route designations established under subsection (1) shall be designated by appropriate signs placed on the highways or streets. The design and placement of the signs shall be consistent with the requirements of section 608.

(3) If a township has established a prohibition or limitation under subsection (1) on any county primary road that an adjoining township determines diverts traffic onto a border highway or street shared by the township and the adjoining township, the adjoining township may submit a written objection to the county road commission having jurisdiction over the county primary road, along with a copy to the township that established the prohibition or limitation, 60 days after the township approves the prohibition or limitation. The written objection shall explain how the prohibition or limitation diverts traffic onto the border highway or street shared by the township and the adjoining township. The county road commission shall then investigate the objection. The township and adjoining township shall cooperate with that investigation and negotiate in good faith to resolve the objection. If the objection is not resolved within 60 days after the township receives the copy of the written objection, the county road commission shall either approve or void the prohibition or limitation that is the subject of the objection within 60 days after the 60-day period described in this subsection, and the decision shall be final. As used in this subsection, "county primary road" means a highway or street designated as a county primary road under 1951 PA 51, MCL 247.671 to 247.675.

(4) An ordinance or resolution described in subsection (1)(a) does not apply to a vehicle that is used to transport agricultural products, farm machinery, farm supplies, or a combination of these items, to or from a farm or as necessary for agricultural production.

(5) A person who violates a prohibition, limitation, or truck route designation established under subsection (1) is responsible for a civil infraction.

History: 1949, Act 300, Eff. Sept. 23, 1949 ;-- Am. 1978, Act 510, Eff. Aug. 1, 1979 ;-- Am. 1983, Act 107, Imd. Eff. June 30, 1983 ;-- Am. 2008, Act 539, Imd. Eff. Jan. 13, 2009 ;-- Am. 2018, Act 533, Eff. Mar. 28, 2019

Constitutionality Notes:

This section was held unconstitutional insofar as it deprives a municipality of the right to reasonable control over its streets, including state trunk lines within its limits, in violation of Const 1963, art VII, § 29. City of Dearborn v Sugden and Sivier, Inc, 343 Mich 257; 72 NW2d 185 (1955).

Compiler's Notes:

In the last sentence of subsection (3), the citation "1951 PA 51, MCL 247.671 to 247.675" evidently should read "1951 PA 51, MCL 247.651 to 247.675".

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases, 1953–2013 · leading case: Oshtemo Charter Twp. v. Kalamazoo Cnty. Road Comm'n, 302 Mich. App. 574 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Oshtemo Charter Twp. v. Kalamazoo Cnty. Road Comm'n, 302 Mich. App. 574 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 39× “OBJECTIONS TO THE TRUCK ROUTE ORDINANCE Effective January 13, 2009, the Legislature amended MCL 257.726, adding subdivision (3). 2 MCL 257.”

Oshtemo Charter Twp. v. Kalamazoo Cnty. Road Comm'n, 792 N.W.2d 401 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 37× “We hold that the trial court misinterpreted MCL 257.726(3), the statute authorizing the road commission to resolve the dispute among several townships in this matter.”

Fenton Gravel Co., Inc. v. Vill. of Fenton, 123 N.W.2d 763 (Mich. 1963). · cites it 2× “" CLS 1956, § 257.726 (Stat Ann 1960 Rev § 9.2426). (Emphasis supplied.”

People v. Wolfe, 61 N.W.2d 767 (Mich. 1953). “It is also significant in this connection that authority granted to county road commissioners and other local highway officials to impose limitations as to weight ofj *538 trucks and commercial vehicles and the operation thereof on public highways under the jurisdiction of such…”

Robinson Twp. v. Ottawa Cnty. Bd. of Road Commissioners, 319 N.W.2d 589 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982). “2306(l)(h), giving the township the power to regulate "streets or highways under the jurisdiction of the local authority * * * as provided in MCL 257.726; MSA 9.2426” which grants power to "local authorities and county road commissions * * * [to] prohibit the operation of trucks…”

City of Dearborn v. Sugden & Sivier, Inc., 72 N.W.2d 185 (Mich. 1955). “In asking dismissal defendant relied on section 726 of the Michigan motor vehicle code * (CLS 1952, § 257.726 [Stat Ann 1952 Eev § 9.2426]) which reads as follows: “Local authorities and county road commissions with respect to highways under their jurisdiction, except State…”

C&T Transp., Inc v. York Twp., 652 N.W.2d 694 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “MCL 257.726 provides in pertinent part: (1) Local authorities and county road commissions with respect to highways under their jurisdiction, except state trunk line highways, by ordinance or resolution, may do any of the following: (a) Prohibit the operation of trucks or other…”

City of Trenton v. Wayne Cnty. Bd. of Road Commissioners, 323 N.W.2d 340 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982). “Furthermore, they possess concurrent authority to impose weight restrictions on highways under their jurisdictions pursuant to § 726 of the Michigan Vehicle Code, MCL 257.726; MSA 9.2426. Section 726 provides, in pertinent part: "Sec.”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.726(1) — 2 cases

Oshtemo Charter Twp. v. Kalamazoo Cnty. Road Comm'n, 302 Mich. App. 574 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). “OBJECTIONS TO THE TRUCK ROUTE ORDINANCE Effective January 13, 2009, the Legislature amended MCL 257.726, adding subdivision (3). 2 MCL 257.”

C&T Transp., Inc v. York Twp., 652 N.W.2d 694 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). “MCL 257.726 provides in pertinent part: (1) Local authorities and county road commissions with respect to highways under their jurisdiction, except state trunk line highways, by ordinance or resolution, may do any of the following: (a) Prohibit the operation of trucks or other…”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.726(3) — 2 cases

Oshtemo Charter Twp. v. Kalamazoo Cnty. Road Comm'n, 792 N.W.2d 401 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010). “We hold that the trial court misinterpreted MCL 257.726(3), the statute authorizing the road commission to resolve the dispute among several townships in this matter.”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.726(l)(c) — 1 case

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.