SMITH TERMINAL WAREHOUSE COMPANY, PETITIONER,
v.
WILLIAM H. BEVIS 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.
Smith Terminal Warehouse Company sought a writ of certiorari to challenge the Florida Public Service Commission's denial of its application for a permanent for-hire permit to transport goods to Broward and Palm Beach Counties. The Florida Supreme Court upheld the Commission's decision, finding no departure from law and adequate evidentiary support for the denial.
The Commission's denial order did not depart from the essential requirements of law and was supported by substantial competent evidence, so the petition for writ of certiorari was denied.
[1] A court reviewing an administrative order by writ of certiorari must determine if the order departs from the essential requirements of law.
[2] An administrative agency's findings and conclusions must be supported by competent, substantial evidence.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“On review by certiorari of an administrative order, it is our function to determine whether the order departs from the essential requirements of law and whether the agency had before it competent, substantial evidence to support its findings and conclusions.”
Establishes the limited standard of review for certiorari petitions challenging administrative agency decisions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSmith Terminal held a 1970 for-hire permit allowing casual, nonrecurring transportation from its Dade County warehouse within Dade County. In July 197…
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 Administrative Order Review cases and more on FLexlaw
OVERTON, Justice.
This is a petition for writ of certiorari to review an order of the respondent, Florida Public Service Commission, denying petitioner’s application for a permanent for-hire permit to transport goods from his warehouse in Dade County to points in Broward and Palm Beach Counties. We have jurisdiction.1
Petitioner presently holds a for-hire permit, issued by the Commission in 1970, to transport freight from his warehouse to points in Dade County in single, casual, nonrecurring trips over irregular routes and schedules, when such transportation is wholly incidental to his warehousing business. In July, 1973, the Commission granted petitioner temporary authority to extend this service to points in Broward and Palm Beach Counties during the cessation of operations by South Florida Freightways, Inc., or until further notification. Subsequently, a hearing was held to determine whether petitioner should be granted permanent authority to operate in Broward and Palm Beach Counties. Gold Coast Trucking & Express, Inc., and Gator Freightways, Inc., appeared at the hearing to protest this proposed extension of petitioner’s service.
Although the petitioner was found qualified as a for-hire carrier, the Commission denied the application on the grounds that public convenience and necessity did not require issuance of the permit and granting the application would adversely affect transportation facilities as a whole in the area concerned. Petitioner then initiated the instant proceeding in this Court, principally contending that there was an improper application of Section 323.05, Florida Statutes, and that the Commission abused its discretion in denying a permanent for-hire permit to petitioner. We, if sitting as the Commission, might well have granted the permit on the record in this cause.
However, it is not the function of this tribunal to substitute its judgment for that of the Commission through its examiners.
We find no improper application of the appropriate statutory provisions. On review by certiorari of an administrative order, it is our function to determine whether the order departs from the essential requirements of law and whether the agency had before it competent, substantial evidence to support its findings and conclusions. See, e. g., Tamiami Trail Tours, Inc. v. Bevis, 299 So. 2d 22 (Fla.1974); Schreiber Express, Inc. v. Yarborough, 257 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 1971) ; Florida Rate Conference v. Florida R.R. & Public Utilities Commission, 108 So. 2d 601 (Fla.1959).
We find no departure from the essential requirements of law in the present case, the Commission’s order being supported by substantial competent evidence.
For these reasons, the petition for writ of certiorari is denied.
It is so ordered.
ADKINS, C. J., ROBERTS and Mc-CAIN, JJ., and RUDD, Circuit Court Judge, concur. . See Article V. Section 3(b)(7). Florida Constitution, and Section 350.641, Florida Statutes.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Sch. Bd. OF Nassau Cnty. v. Arline, 408 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…reached the same conclusion had we been sitting as the School Board, we may not substitute our judgment for that of the Board as long as there is substantial competent evidence to support its decision. See Smith Terminal Warehouse Company v. Bevis, 312 So. 2d 721 (Fla.1975); Manatee County v. Florida Public Employees Relations Commission, 387 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Wilson v. Pest Control Commission of Florida, 199 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967). The Board’s finding that there were good and sufficien…
-
Fla. Tel. Corp. v. Mayo, 350 So. 2d 775 (Fla. 1977)…he authority to do so, we might have ordered one of the proposed forms of relief. But our scope of review of Public Service Commission orders is narrow and Florida Telephone has not fit this case within it. Cf. Smith Terminal Warehouse Co. v. Bevis, 312 So. 2d 721 (Fla.1975). Although the Commission has the power to regulate telephone service contracts between telephone companies and their patrons, Section 364.19, Florida Statutes, and may require that there be filed with it contracts between telephone compan…
-
Redwing Enters., Inc. v. Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, 386 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…ring officer to this effect, which were adopted by the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, are supported by competent substantial evidence and the essential requirements of the applicable law. Smith Terminal Warehouse Co. v. Be [*1256] vis, 312 So. 2d 721 (Fla.1975); Peden v. State Board of Funeral Directors & Embalmers, 189 So. 2d 526 (Fla.3d DCA 1966); Torch Club, Inc. v. Keating, 174 So. 2d 746 (Fla.2d DCA 1965), cert. denied, 188 So. 2d 313 (Fla.1966). The order below is therefore Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- Florida Rate Conference v. Fla. R.R. & Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 108 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 1959)
- Schreiber Express, Inc. v. Jess Yarborough, 257 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 1971)
- Tamiami Trail Tours, Inc. v. Bevis, 299 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 1974)