L. & L. FREIGHT LINES, INC.,
v.
W. B. DOUGLASS, AS CHAIRMAN, AND A MEMBER OF, EUGENE S. MATTHEWS, AS A MEMBER OF, AND JERRY W. CARTER, AS A MEMBER OF, AND JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY COMPOSING THE FLORIDA RAILROAD COMMISSION
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.
L. & L. Freight Lines sought mandamus to compel the Florida Railroad Commission to grant a state Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for interstate motor carrier operations. The Florida Supreme Court held that while federal law grants a temporary right to continue operations pending ICC review, the state commission has no duty to issue its own certificate until the ICC has made a final determination on the applicant's permanent federal status.
The court held that while the Federal Motor Carrier Act grants a temporary federal statutory right to continue interstate operations pending ICC review, this is a transient right of limited duration. The Florida Railroad Commission has no duty to issue its own state certificate until after the Interstate Commerce Commission has finally decided the applicant's permanent status under federal law.
“such Federal right is of transient and temporary character only until the permanent status of the applicant under subparagraph (b) of Section 206, supra, has been duly investigated and finally decided by the Interstate Commerce Commission according to applicable United States law”
Establishes that the federal right to continue operations is temporary and limited to the pendency of ICC review
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceL. & L. Freight Lines was a motor common carrier operating in interstate commerce and claimed benefits under subparagraph (b) of Section 206 of the Fe…
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 Certificate Of Convenience And Necessity cases and more on FLexlaw
While a motor common carrier claiming bona fide the benefits of sub-paragraph (b) of Section 206 of the Federal Motor Carrier Act of 1935 (Title 49, U. S. Code Annotated, Sections 301 to 327, both inclusive, 49 U. S. Statutes 543), to continue its already begun interstate commerce haulage operations until its pending application to the Interstate Commerce Commission for a permanent Certificate of Convenience and Necessity has been heard, considered and decided pursuant to applicable United States statutes and regulations, possesses a Federal Statutory right amounting to a Federal status that is entitled to legal and equitable protection in appropriate litigation (L.&L. Freight Lines, Inc., v. Florida Railroad Commission, 124 Fla. 579, 169 Sou. Rep. 370), yet such Federal right is of transient and temporary character only until the permanent status of the applicant under subparagraph (b) of Section 206, supra, has been duly investigated and finally decided by the Interstate Commerce Commission according to applicable United States law, so there is no duty on the Florida Railroad Commission to grant its own Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the interstate operation involved until after the Interstate Commerce Commission of the United States has finally decided the permanent status of the applicant under Federal law.
Therefore the alternative writ of mandamus in this case is denied, without prejudice, however, to the right of the relator to renew its application if and when its permanent status under the Federal, 1935, Motor Common Carrier Act has been finally decided.
Whitfield, C. J., and Ellis, Terrell, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State ex rel. W. v. Gray, 74 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 1954)…, 7 So. 2d 105; Crawford v. Gilchrist, 64 Fla. 41, 59 So. 963; State ex rel. Sunday v. Richards, 50 Fla. 284, 39 So. 152; and Fla. Cent. & P. R. Co. v. State, 31 Fla. 482, 13 So. 103, 20 L.R.A. 419. And see State ex rel. Andrews v. Gray, 125 Fla. 1, 169 So. 501. Here, however, the relator seeks to avail himself of the processes of this court to expunge from the rolls as a qualified candidate for the Democratic nomination for Governor the name of a single respondent after it has already been established, by…
-
Brinkmann v. Tyron Francois, 184 So. 3d 504 (Fla. 2016)…he primary election mechanism to permit a given political party to select a representative whom that party genuinely intended to support in a general election for public office. See Wagner, 74 So. 2d at 91; State ex rel. Andrews v. Gray, 125 Fla. 1, 169 So. 501, 505 (1936). This Court has explained that [t]he purpose of a primary election is to give vitality to the constitutional guaranty of a free and untrammeled ballot by affording freedom of choice of candidates to the individual party voter who may be…
-
State ex rel. W. v. Gray, 70 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 1954)…So. 2d 105; Crawford v. Gilchrist, 64 Fla. 41, 59 So. 963; State ex rel. Sunday v. Richards, 50 Fla. 284, 39 So. 152; and Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. v. State, 31 Fla. 482, 13 So. 103, 20 L.R.A. 419. And see State ex rel. Andrews v. Gray, 125 Fla. 1, 169 So. 501. Here, however, the relator seeks to avail himself of the processes of this court to expunge from the rolls as a qualified candidate for the Democratic nomination for Governor the name of a single respondent after it has already been established, by…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Douglass, 124 Fla. 579 (Fla. 1936)
- L. & L. Freight Lines, Inc. v. Douglass, 124 Fla. 696 (Fla. 1936)