R.I. Gen. Laws
Rhode Island General Laws

R.I. Gen. Laws § 31-13-2 (2026)

Devices on state highways

✓ text as last checked Sept. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section RI-LEGwebserver.rilegislature.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) The state traffic commission shall place and maintain any traffic control devices, conforming to its manual and specifications, upon any state highways, that it shall deem necessary to indicate and to carry out the provisions of chapters 12 — 27 of this title or to regulate, warn, or guide traffic.

(b) No local authority shall place or maintain any traffic control device upon any highway under the jurisdiction of the state traffic commission except by the latter’s permission.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1976–1994 · leading case: Ferreira v. Strack, 636 A.2d 682 (R.I. 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ferreira v. Strack, 636 A.2d 682 (R.I. 1994). “1956 (1982 Reenactment) § 31-13-2(a) (authorizing state traffic commission to place and maintain traffic-control devices upon state highways to “regulate, warn, or guide traffic”); § 31-13-3 (authorizing cities and towns to place and maintain traffic-control devices upon local…”
State v. Piscopio, 366 A.2d 146 (R.I. 1976). “It urges, however, that the officer’s testimony that the device in fact existed triggered the presumption that public officials had properly discharged their duties of placing and maintaining authorized devices (§31-13-2(a) and '§31-13-3, as amended by P.”
R.I. Gen. Laws § 31-13-2(a): 2 cases
Ferreira v. Strack, 636 A.2d 682 (R.I. 1994). “1956 (1982 Reenactment) § 31-13-2(a) (authorizing state traffic commission to place and maintain traffic-control devices upon state highways to “regulate, warn, or guide traffic”); § 31-13-3 (authorizing cities and towns to place and maintain traffic-control devices upon local…”
State v. Piscopio, 366 A.2d 146 (R.I. 1976). “It urges, however, that the officer’s testimony that the device in fact existed triggered the presumption that public officials had properly discharged their duties of placing and maintaining authorized devices (§31-13-2(a) and '§31-13-3, as amended by P.”
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.