Mississippi Code

Miss. Code Ann. § 63-3-516 (2026)

Speed limits within highway work zones; penalties for violations

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaMiss. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Laws, 1997, ch. 326, § 1; Laws, 2004, ch. 324, § 1, eff. 7/1/2004.

Amended by Laws, 2019, ch. 356, HB 580,§ 2, eff. 7/1/2019.


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1998–2006 · leading case: Harrison v. State, 800 So. 2d 1134 (Miss. 2001).
Harrison v. State, 800 So. 2d 1134 (Miss. 2001). · cites it 4× “We granted certiorari solely to confront a matter of statutory interpretation of first impression, that is, whether the specific provisions of Miss.Code Ann. § 63-3-516 (Supp.2000) control over the more general speeding statutes.”
Etheridge v. Harold Case & Co., Inc., 960 So. 2d 474 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006). “, citing Miss.Code Ann. § 63-3-516(1) (2000). Therefore, though the only traffic signs regarding speed limits in this location indicated that 60 miles per hour was the maximum, the absence of construction workers meant the posted limit was not the enforceable limit.”
Billy Daniel Harrison, Jr. v. State of Mississippi (Miss. 1998). · cites it 4× “We granted certiorari solely to confront a matter of statutory interpretation of first impression, that is, whether the specific provisions of Miss. Code Ann. § 63-3-516 (Supp. 2000) control over the more general speeding statutes.”
Miss. Code Ann. § 63-3-516(1): 2 cases
Harrison v. State, 800 So. 2d 1134 (Miss. 2001). “We granted certiorari solely to confront a matter of statutory interpretation of first impression, that is, whether the specific provisions of Miss.Code Ann. § 63-3-516 (Supp.2000) control over the more general speeding statutes.”
Etheridge v. Harold Case & Co., Inc., 960 So. 2d 474 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006). “, citing Miss.Code Ann. § 63-3-516(1) (2000). Therefore, though the only traffic signs regarding speed limits in this location indicated that 60 miles per hour was the maximum, the absence of construction workers meant the posted limit was not the enforceable limit.”
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.