23 U.S.C. § 302

State transportation department

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 23 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Any State desiring to avail itself of the provisions of this title shall have a State transportation department which shall have adequate powers, and be suitably equipped and organized to discharge to the satisfaction of the Secretary the duties required by this title. In meeting the provisions of this subsection, a State may engage, to the extent necessary or desirable, the services of private engineering firms.(b)Effect of Compliance.—Compliance with subsection (a) shall have no effect on the eligibility of costs.(Pub. L. 85–767, Aug. 27, 1958, 72 Stat. 912; Pub. L. 89–574, § 11, Sept. 13, 1966, 80 Stat. 770; Pub. L. 105–178, title I, § 1212(a)(1), (2)(A)(i), (B)(ii), June 9, 1998, 112 Stat. 193.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1998—Pub. L. 105–178, § 1212(a)(2)(B)(ii), substituted “State transportation department” for “State highway department” in section catchline.

Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 105–178, § 1212(a)(1)(A), (2)(A)(i), substituted “State transportation department” for “State highway department” and struck out after first sentence “Among other things, the organization shall include a secondary road unit.”

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 105–178, § 1212(a)(1)(B), added subsec. (b) and struck out former subsec. (b) which read as follows: “The State highway department may arrange with a county or group of counties for competent highway engineering personnel suitably organized and equipped to the satisfaction of the State highway department, to supervise construction and maintenance on a county-unit or group-unit basis, for the construction of projects on the Federal-aid secondary system, financed with secondary funds, and for the maintenance thereof.”

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases, 1969–2007 · leading case: State Ex Rel. State High. Comm'n v. City of St. Louis, 575 S.W.2d 712 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State Ex Rel. State High. Comm'n v. City of St. Louis, 575 S.W.2d 712 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 4× “See 23 U.S.C.A. § 302 (a) (Supp.1978); 23 CFR 1.”

City of Cleveland v. Ohio, 508 F.3d 827 (6th Cir. 2007). “23 U.S.C. § 302 . Because Ohio maintains the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT), it meets this requirement.”

City of Pleasant Ridge v. Governor, 169 N.W.2d 625 (Mich. 1969). · cites it 3× “3 specifies that "Each State highway department, maintained in conformity with 23 USC § 302 , shall be authorized, by the laws of the State, to make final decisions for the State in all matters relating to, and to enter into, on behalf of the State, all contracts and agreements…”

James Julian, Inc. v. State High. Admin., 492 A.2d 308 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1985). “See also 23 U.S.C. § 302 (b) (1976): (b) The State highway department may arrange with a county or group of counties for competent highway engineering personnel suitably organized and equipped to the satisfaction of the State highway department, to supervise construction and…”

Hill v. Coleman, 399 F. Supp. 194 (D. Del. 1975). “23 U.S.C. § 302 (a), 23 CFR § 1.3 . 26 . See 23 U.”

Stephens v. Adams, 469 F. Supp. 1222 (E.D. Wis. 1979). · cites it 3× “Hibbs’ affidavit establishes that pursuant to 23 U.S.C. §§ 302 (b) and 105(d), direction of the project was assumed by the Waukesha County Highway and Transportation Commission.”

City of Cleveland v. State of OH (6th Cir. 2007). “23 U.S.C. § 302 . Because Ohio maintains the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT), it meets this requirement.”

Cheryl Turgeon, et al. v. P Trinity Indus., Inc., et al., 2018 DNH 179 (D.N.H. 2000). “23 U.S.C. § 302 (West 2018); see 23 C.F.R.”

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.