REDWING CARRIERS, INC.,
v.
CARTER ET AL.
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.
Redwing Carriers, Inc. sought judicial review of the Florida Railroad and Public Utilities Commission's denial of its application to extend its certificate of public convenience and necessity to transport additional distillates. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the Commission's denial, finding no abuse of discretion and sufficient evidence supporting the Commission's determination.
The Commission did not abuse its discretion or misapply the law in denying the application. The Commission's determination was supported by ample evidence, and the issue of whether the territory was adequately served with the distillates Redwing sought authority to transport was properly within the Commission's purview.
“We fail to find where the Commission abused its discretion or misapplied the law. There was some conflicting evidence but we find ample support for the finding and order of the Commission.”
Establishes the Court's deferential standard of review for administrative decisions and the basis for affirming the Commission's denial.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRedwing Carriers held a certificate from the Commission to transport certain distillates to specified territory in Florida. The company applied for an…
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 Conflicting Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
TERRELL, Justice.
Redwing Carriers, Inc. has a certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity from Florida Railroad and Public Utilities Commission, hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission, to transport certain distillates to specified territory in the State. It applied to the Commission for an extension of said certificate to transport other distillates in the same territory. A public hearing was ordered, much testimony was taken and the application for extension was denied. We are confronted with an appeal by certiorari praying, that the order of the Commission be reviewed and quashed.
Chapter 323, Florida Statutes 1951, F.S.A., particularly Section 323.03, defines the power of the Commission with reference to issuing or enlarging certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity to common carriers. A number of carriers and other witnesses protested issuance of the enlarged certificates and testified at the hearing. ,We fail to find where the 'Commission abused its discretion or misapplied the law. There was some conflicting evidence but we find ample support for the finding and order of the Commission. Petitioner relies primarily on Benton Bros. Film Express, Inc., v. Florida Railroad and Public Utilities Commission, Fla., 57 So. 2d 435, but we think that tase is easily distinguishable from the case at bar. The issue before the Commission had to do with authorizing petitioner to extend its service so it could recoup operation losses and this question presented the further question of whether or not the territory was adequately served with the distillates petitioner was seeking authority to transport.
The order of the Commission is affirmed on authority of Great Southern Trucking Co. v. Mack, Fla., 54 So. 2d 153; Petroleum Carrier Corporation v. Florida Railroad and Public Utilities Commission, Fla., 50 So. 2d 528; Florida Motor Lines Corporation v. Douglass, 148 Fla. 598, 4 So. 2d 856; Central Truck Lines v. Railroad Commission, 118 Fla. 555, 160 So. 26; Tamiami Trail Tours v. Florida Railroad Commission, 120 Fla. 371, 163 So. 1. The subject matter of the litigation was amply covered in these cases.
The application' for certiorari is deniéd.
ROBERTS, C. J., and SEBRING and MATHEWS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Cent. Truck Lines, Inc. v. R.R. Comm'n & St. Johns River Line Co., 118 Fla. 555 (Fla. 1935)
- Great S. Trucking Co. v. MacK, 54 So.2d 153 (Fla. 1951)
- Tamiami Trail Tours, Inc. v. R.R. Comm'n of The State of Fla. & Coast to Coast Sys., Inc., 120 Fla. 371 (Fla. 1935)
- Redwing Carriers, Inc. v. Carter, 64 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 1953)