ORANGE CITY WATER COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
v.
EDWIN L. MASON, JERRY W. CARTER AND WILBUR C. KING, AS AND CONSTITUTING THE FLORIDA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, A STATE AGENCY, AND BOLLING C. STANLEY, RESPONDENTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Orange City Water Company sought a writ of mandamus against the Florida Public Utilities Commission, which had refused to process the company's application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity. The Florida Supreme Court held that the Commission retains jurisdiction over water companies operating within municipalities, even though a special act had removed jurisdiction over unincorporated areas, and ordered the Commission to process the application.
Yes. The Florida Public Utilities Commission retains jurisdiction over private water companies operating within municipalities under Chapter 367, and must process the petitioner's application. The enactment of a special act removing part of the Commission's regulatory jurisdiction does not render the general law nugatory or divest the Commission of authority over utilities within municipal limits.
“Merely because the Legislature carved out of the general law by the special act the authority of the Respondents to regulate private water companies in unincorporated areas of the county in nowise renders nugatory the remaining provisions of the general law.”
Establishes that partial statutory removal of jurisdiction does not nullify remaining statutory provisions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn February 1963, Orange City Water Company applied to the Florida Public Utilities Commission for a certificate of public convenience and necessity t…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Adequate Remedy cases and more on FLexlaw
Orange City Water Company, a Florida corporation, as Petitioner sought an alternative writ of mandamus against the Florida Public Utilities Commission, a state agency, Respondents. This Court author*450ized issuance of the writ. The case was argued upon the writ and return and motion to quash of the Respondents.
Briefly stated, the facts are: In February 1963 Petitioner applied to Respondents for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to operate a water company within the corporate limits of Orange City, Volusia County, Florida, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 367, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. The same month the Respondents rejected the application on the ground it “now has no jurisdiction over1 water and sewer utilities in Volusia County.” Chapter 367 purports to bring all privately owned water and sewer systems .under the regulatory control of the respondents. This law becomes effective ill a c'ounty “immediately upon the adoption by the board' of. county commissioners * * * of a resolution declaring-that such county is subject to the provisions of this law and the submission of said resolution to the Florida utilities commission.” In September 1959 the Board of County Commissioners of Volusia County adopted the prescribed resolution and submitted it to. the Respondents. Chapter 367 (Ch. 59-372) is a general act that became effective on-June 18, 1959. Two days later, on June 20, 1959, Chapter 59-1958, a special act,, became effective. This special act provides for the regulation by the Board of County Commissioners of Volusia County of water, sewer and other utilities in Volusia County, “but outside the limits of any municipality.”
Because the Legislature by the special act removed from the regulatory jurisdiction of the Respondents private water companies operating in unincorporated areas of Volusia County and gave such authority to the Board of County Commissioners of Volusia County, the Respondents contend they are not required to honor Petitioner’s application. We can find no basis for this contention. Respondents do not challenge the constitutionality of Chapter 367. Neither is it challenged by the municipal authorities of Orange City, in which Petitioner operates, or by any other party.
Absent a showing of unconstitutionality or a logical construction of the statute to the contrary, we see no reason not to implement the statute as Petitioner demands. Merely because the Legislature carved out of the general law by the special act the authority of the Respondents to regulate private water companies in unincorporated areas of the county in nowise renders nugatory the remaining provisions of the general law. Under the latter, it appears Respondents have a duty to honor the Petitioner’s application. Because a part of the regulatory jurisdiction of Respondents was cancelled out by enactment of the special act, it does not follow that all of their authority stands repealed. The wisdom or policy of the statutes involved are beyond the concern of the Court.
Other contentions of the Respondents respecting laches, lack of necessary parties and that the Petitioner has other adequate legal or equita.ble remedy, have been carefully considered.
Inasmuch as the governing statute remains operative and available to any applying private water company operating within a municipality and the resolution of the County Commissioners remains unre-scinded and in effect, and conditions precedent have been satisfied, we do not believe the claim of laches is applicable. It is claimed that the municipality of Orange City is a necessary party. While conceding the City could have intervened in the cause, it does not appear to be a necessary or indispensable party, inasmuch as the issue is whether the Respondents have jurisdiction over Petitioner. If they have, the City does not and the latter therefore is not a necessary party for the adjudication of the case. Mandamus appears to be an appropriate remedy against a state officer or officers who refuse to perform a statutory duty.
The motion to quash is denied and peremptory writ is granted.
DREW, C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS and CALDWELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Deltona Corp. v. Fla. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 220 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 1969)…hose operating water and sewer utility systems in the unincorporated areas of Volusia County. Ch. 59-1958 became a law on June 20, 1959, two days after Ch. 367, Fla.Stats., F.S.A., became effective. In Orange City Water Company v. Mason (Fla.1964), 166 So. 2d 449, this Court construed these two statutes as denying to the Florida Public Service Commission jurisdiction over privately owned water companies in the unincorporated areas of Volusia County. The Court pointed out that the Legislature, by a special Ac…
-
Carol City Utils., Inc. v. Dade Cnty., 183 So. 2d 227 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)…re could make any rule relating to public utilities. The point has been determined adversely to the position of the appellant. See City of Plantation v. Utilities Operating Co., Fla.1963, 156 So. 2d 842; Orange City Water Company v. Mason, Fla.1964, 166 So. 2d 449. See also Cooper v. Tampa Electric Co., 154 Fla. 410, 17 So. 2d 785 (1944); Miami Shores Village v. Cowart, Fla.1958, 108 So. 2d 468. Appellant’s second point urges that the Board created by the ordinance is illegal because the members are appointe…1 / 2
-
Orange City Water Co. v. Town OF Orange City, 188 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 1966)…So. 147. . 1919, 78 Fla. 337, 82 So. 789. . Fla.1961, 127 So. 2d 441. . 1920, 80 Fla. 352, 86 So. 247. . 1961, 130 So. 2d 577. . 1902, 113 Wis. 516, 89 N.W. 460. . 1911, 145 Wis. 500, 130 N.W. 709. . Orange City Water Co. v. Mason, Fla.1964, 166 So. 2d 449, 450.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence