Whenever any roadway has been divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic, the following rules in addition to all others consistent herewith apply:
1. A vehicle must be driven as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane and may not be moved from such lane until the driver has first ascertained that such movement can be made with safety.
2. Upon a roadway which is divided into three lanes and provides for two-way traffic, a vehicle may not be driven in the center lane except when overtaking and passing another vehicle traveling in the same direction when such center lane is clear of traffic within a safe distance, or in preparation for making a left turn or where such center lane is at the time allocated exclusively to traffic moving in the same direction that the vehicle is proceeding and such allocation is designated by official traffic-control devices.
3. Official traffic-control devices may be erected directing specified traffic to use a designated lane or designating those lanes to be used by traffic moving in a particular direction regardless of the center of the roadway and drivers of vehicles shall obey the directions of every such device.
4. Official traffic-control devices may be installed prohibiting the changing of lanes on sections of roadway and drivers of vehicles shall obey the directions of every such device.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases, 1961–2017 · leading case:
State v. James, 2016 ND 68 (N.D. 2016).
State v. James, 2016 ND 68 (N.D. 2016).
· cites it 2× “” See also N.D.C.C. § 39-10-17(1) (“Whenever any roadway has been divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic, .”
State v. Wolfer, 2010 ND 63 (N.D. 2010).
· cites it 2× “" N.D.C.C. § 39-10-17(1). Evidence presented at the suppression hearing was sufficient to support the district court's conclusion Wolfer's arresting officer had a reasonable and articulable suspicion Wolfer had violated the practicable lane statute by crossing over the fog line.”
State v. Webster, 2017 ND 75 (N.D. 2017).
· cites it 2× “See N.D.C.C. § 39-10-17(1) (providing that “[a] vehicle must be driven as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane .”
State v. Guttormson, 2015 ND 235 (N.D. 2015).
· cites it 4× “See N.D.C.C. § 39-10-17(1) (providing that “[a] vehicle must be driven as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane .”
Knoepfle v. Suko, 108 N.W.2d 456 (N.D. 1961).
· cites it 2× “” This instruction is a direct quotation of Section 39-10-17 subsection 1, NDCC. There is no question but that it is a correct statement of the law.”
State v. Ostby, 2014 ND 180 (N.D. 2014).
· cites it 4× “The court further ruled the traffic stop was legal because the sergeant “had a reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity based upon law enforcement’s observations at the controlled drug buy.” Ostby argues the stop was illegal because the sergeant “did not…”
N.D. Cent. Code § 39-10-17(1): 5 cases
State v. James, 2016 ND 68 (N.D. 2016).
“” See also N.D.C.C. § 39-10-17(1) (“Whenever any roadway has been divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic, .”
State v. Wolfer, 2010 ND 63 (N.D. 2010).
“" N.D.C.C. § 39-10-17(1). Evidence presented at the suppression hearing was sufficient to support the district court's conclusion Wolfer's arresting officer had a reasonable and articulable suspicion Wolfer had violated the practicable lane statute by crossing over the fog line.”
State v. Webster, 2017 ND 75 (N.D. 2017).
“See N.D.C.C. § 39-10-17(1) (providing that “[a] vehicle must be driven as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane .”
State v. Guttormson, 2015 ND 235 (N.D. 2015).
“See N.D.C.C. § 39-10-17(1) (providing that “[a] vehicle must be driven as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane .”
State v. Ostby, 2014 ND 180 (N.D. 2014).
“The court further ruled the traffic stop was legal because the sergeant “had a reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity based upon law enforcement’s observations at the controlled drug buy.” Ostby argues the stop was illegal because the sergeant “did not…”
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.