GREYHOUND LINES, INC., GREYHOUND LINES-EAST DIVISION, PETITIONER,
v.
JESS YARBOROUGH ET AL., 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.
The court held that the Public Service Commission had statutory authority to grant a for-hire permit for a special transportation service, as the relevant statutes did not expressly or implicitly preclude such a grant.
[1] A public service commission possesses broad discretionary authority under pertinent statutes to grant for-hire permits for special transportation services that do not con…
[2] Judicial interference with a public service commission's discretionary duties in authorizing public transportation services is unwarranted unless statutory limitations or…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioners challenged an order granting Warren Hope Dawson a for-hire permit for a special limousine service. The service was described as "single, c…
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 Public Service Commission cases and more on FLexlaw
We review by writ of certiorari an order of the Public Service Commission granting to Warren Hope Dawson, d/b/a Dawson’s *2Limousine Service, a for-hire permit, as per order quoted in part in footnote 1 .
It is the contention of Petitioners-protestants that there is no statutory authority for the Commission to grant the for-hire permit.
We disagree. It is obvious to us that there is ample discretionary authority re-' posed in the Commission by pertinent statutes to grant the for-hire permit in this case. Reference is made to F.S. Section 323.01(4), Section 323.01(9), Section 323.-05, Section 350.12(1) (T) and Section 350.-12(1) (m), F.S.A. These statutes by their broad language do not exclude the grant of the special transportation for-hire service authorized by the Commission in its order. The for-hire permit granted does not by its terms conflict with any of the specific limitations either in the definition section, Section 323.01, subsections (4) and (9), or Section 323.05. The Dawson service is not a taxicab operation; it is not a common carrier or contract carrier, or charter carrier. Rather, it is as described in the permit, order, a special transportation service consisting of “single, casual, and nonrecurring trips.” Cf. Travis v. Fry, 139 Fla. 522, 190 So. 793; Great Southern Trucking Co. v. Carter, Fla., 113 So.2d 555, and Blair Contracting Company v. Mason, Fla., 211 So.2d 15, text 18.
We reiterate there is no preclusion of this limited special service. Unless there are statutory limitations or restrictions either expressly or clearly implied in the governing statutes upon the Commission’s power to discharge its discretionary duties and responsibilities in authorizing public transportation services for compensation, there is no warrant for judicial interference. None appear in the applicable statutes.
We find that the Commission’s order accords with the essential requirements of law and is supported by competent substantial evidence. It lay within the *3statutory authority and discretion of the Commission to determine that the particular limited service which Dawson sought to provide was warranted by the special circumstances.
This Court has often reiterated the principle that a construction of a statute by the administrative body in whom authority to administer is reposed is entitled to great weight and should not be overturned unless clearly contrary to the language of the statute. Furthermore, we conclude government should not intrude to restrict or limit freedom of private enterprise to function in any area unless governing statutes clearly so provide. Compare Tamiami Trail Tours, Inc. v. Mayo, Fla., 234 So.2d 4, text 5, 6, 7.
The writ of certiorari is discharged.
CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. Crawford, 645 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…t weight to the agency’s construction of the statutes it is charged with administering, and a court is not authorized to overturn the agency’s determination unless it is “contrary to the language of the statute,” Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Yarborough, 275 So. 2d 1, 3 (Fla.1973), or “clearly erroneous,” Department of Professional Regulation v. Durrani, 455 So. 2d 515, 517 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). If the agency’s construction “is reasonably defensible, it should not be rejected merely because the courts might prefe…1 / 2
-
Nat'l Indem. Co. v. Pa. Nat'l Mut. Ins. Co., 363 So. 2d 151 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…d not substitute their judgment; but here, the language is not, in my view, so clear. I would follow the administrative interpretation of the statute shown by the acceptance of the new policy as a substitute. See Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Yarborough, 275 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1973); see also Blair Contracting Company v. Mason, 211 So. 2d 15 (Fla.1968). The close reasoning of the majority cannot be faulted by me. I also recognize that the cited case of American Automobile Insurance Company v. Pajor, 316 So. 2d 612 (…
-
Davis v. Bureau OF Crimes Comp., 406 So. 2d 1189 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…inasmuch as the deputy has construed a statute in an area within his special expertise, his interpretation' will be accepted as correct by this court as the appellant has not shown it to be clearly erroneous. See Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Yarborough, 275 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1973). AFFIRMED. ERVIN, WENTWORTH and JOANOS, JJ., concur.…
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
- Travis v. Fry, 139 Fla. 522 (Fla. 1939)
- Blair Contracting Co. v. Mason, 211 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 1968)
- Tamiami Trail Tours, Inc. v. Mayo, 234 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 1970)
- Great S. Trucking Co. v. Carter, 113 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 1959)