Tex. Codes » Transportation Code · TITLE 7. VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC · SUBTITLE C. RULES OF THE ROAD · CHAPTER 542. GENERAL PROVISIONS
Texas Codes

Tex. Transp. Code § 542.201 (2026)

General Rule Of Uniformity

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section TX-LEGstatutes.capitol.texas.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Sec. 542.201. GENERAL RULE OF UNIFORMITY. This subtitle applies uniformly throughout this state. A local authority may not enact or enforce an ordinance or rule that conflicts with this subtitle unless expressly authorized by this subtitle. However, a local authority may regulate traffic in a manner that does not conflict with this subtitle.

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 2002–2016 · leading case: State v. Patterson, 291 S.W.3d 121 (Tex. App. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Patterson, 291 S.W.3d 121 (Tex. App. 2009). “Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 542.201 (Vernon 1999).”
Jordan Dwayne Nichols v. State, 494 S.W.3d 854 (Tex. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “Accordingly, appellant’s trial counsel, testified that, based ón his research and his interpretation of the statutes, he advised appellant that he believed it to be in appellant’s best interest to accept the State’s plea bargain of the reduced Class C misdemeanor offense.…”
VIA Metro. Transit v. Gerald Anthony Garcia, 397 S.W.3d 702 (Tex. App. 2012). “Tex. Transp. Code § 542.201 (West 2011). 3 b.”
State v. Brian Molegraaf, 86 S.W.3d 311 (Tex. App. 2002). “201 (general rule of uniformity). This is a purpose wholly unrelated to the purpose of the exclusionary rule.”
Jordan Dwayne Nichols v. State (Tex. App. 2015). · cites it 3× “passim TEX. TRANS. CODE §542.201……………………………………….”
State v. Brian Molegraaf (Tex. App. 2002). “" See Tex. Transp. Code Ann. §§ 542.201 -.206 (West 1999 & Supp.”
VIA Metro. Transit v. Gerald Anthony Garcia (Tex. App. 2012). “TEX. TRANSP. CODE § 542.201 (West 2011). 3 b.”
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.