STATE EX REL. NATIONAL TRUCKING COMPANY
v.
J. M. LEE, STATE COMPTROLLER
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.
The Florida Supreme Court upheld the Railroad Commission's authority to require contract carriers to submit their contract rates for approval as a condition of obtaining a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, even though the Commission cannot directly fix such rates. The Court found that consideration of rate schedules is necessary for the Commission to evaluate the effect of operations on transportation as a whole within a territory.
The Railroad Commission is authorized to require contract carriers to submit their contract rates for approval. Although the Commission cannot fix rates for contract carriers, Section 4 of Chapter 14764, Acts of 1931, grants it authority to consider rate schedules when determining whether granting a certificate will affect transportation as a whole within a territory, and may deny applications based on unfair rates.
“that the Commission in granting any such certificate shall take into consideration the effect that the granting of such certificate may have upon transportation facilities within the territory sought to be served by said applicant, and/or congestion or traffic on the highways, and/or safety of traffic moving on the highways under such operations in relationship to other private and/or public traffic permitted by law to move over the same roads or in the same territory, and also the effect upon transportation as a whole within said territory”
This statutory language from Section 4 of Chapter 14764, Acts of 1931, establishes the Commission's authority to require rate submission by providing it must consider effects on overall transportation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNational Trucking Company sought a writ of mandamus to challenge the Railroad Commission's requirement that contract carriers submit their contract ra…
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 Public Convenience And Necessity cases and more on FLexlaw
This case is before us for consideration pursuant to oral argument after rehearing was granted pursuant to our opinion and judgment filed and entered January 22, 1938 (181 Sou. 182) to allow relators to join issue on affirmative allegations of answer and to take testimony before a commissioner appointed for that purpose. Having considered the record as it now appears, we find the allegations of the answer sufficient and supported by the evidence taken.
It is contended that the Railroad Commission is not authorized to fix the rates of contract carriers and that it is not authorized to require contract carriers to submit their contract rates to the commission for approval.
It is true that the Commission is not authorized to fix rates for such carriers but Section 4 of Chapter 14764, Acts of 1931, provides:
'‘At the time specified in said notice, or at such time as may be fixed by the Commission, a public hearing upon said application shall be held by the Commission. At or .after such hearing the Commission may issue a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, as prayed for, or refuse to issue the same, or may issue the same with modifications, or upon such terms and conditions as in its judgment the public convenience and necessity may require; provided, that the Commission in granting any such- certificate shall-take into consideration the effect that the granting of such certificate may have upon transportation facilities within the *834territory sought to be served by said applicant, and/or congestion or traffic on the highways, and/or safety of traffic moving on the highways under such operations in relationship to other private and/or public traffic permitted by law to move over the same roads or in the same territory, and also the effect upon transportation as a whole williin said territory.”
The language: “that the Commission in granting any such certificate shall take into consideration the effect that the granting of such certificate may have upon transportation facilities within the, territory sought to be served by said applicant, and/or congestion of traffic on the highways, and/or safety of traffic moving on the highways under such operations in relationship to other private and/or public traffic permitted by law to move over the same roads or in the same territory, and also the effect upon transportation as a whole within said territory,” is sufficient to authorize the Commission to require applicants to file schedule of contract rates so that the Commission may take same into consideration in determining “the effect upon transportation as a whole within the territory.” And if the schedule of rates shown is such as to make the operation unfair to others engaged in transportation within the same territory, it may be ground on which the application may be denied.
As thus modified, our opinion of January 22, 1938, is controlling and on authority thereof the alternative writ of mandamus is quashed.
So ordered.
Terrell, C. J., and Wi-iitfield, Buford, Chapman and Thomas, J. J., concur.
Brown, J., dissents in part.
(dissenting in part). — I do not think the commission has the power to fix the rates of private contract carriers.
Brown, J.
(dissenting in part). — I do not think the commission has the power to fix the rates of private contract carriers.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cent. Truck Lines, Inc. v. R.R. Comm'n of the State of Fla., 146 Fla. 521 (Fla. 1941)…view and in a dissenting opinion held that the issuance of Order No. 1324 made the operation unfair to common carriers then engaged in transportation in the area and bottomed his holding on State ex rel. National Trucking Co. v. Lee, 139. Fla. 832, 191 So. 17. As pointed out in Riley v. Lawson, supra, the Legislature, in the enactment of Chapter 14764, supra, intended to regulate the use of the highways by motor vehicles operating [*530] for compensation and in so doing placed a limitation on the busine…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Lee, 132 Fla. 533 (Fla. 1938)