Case ID: so2d_282/html/0161-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. ERVIN, Justice", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

JACKSONVILLE TRANSFER & STORAGE, INC., Petitioner, v. William BEVIS et al., Respondents (two cases).
    Nos. 43380, 43381.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    July 5, 1973.
    Rehearing Denied Sept. 24, 1973.
    James E. Wharton and Gregory A. Pres.-nell, of Akerman, Senterfitt, Eidson & Wharton, Orlando, for petitioner.
    Prentice P. Pruitt and Jerry M. Johns, Tallahassee, for respondents.
    W. Guy McKenzie, Jr. and William C. Owen, of Carswell, McKenzie, Dean & Owen, Tallahassee, and Dan R. Schwartz, of Schwartz, Bolinger & Peterson, Jacksonville, for M. R. & R. Trucking Co., intervening respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

By petition for writ of certiorari we have for review Order No. 10383 of the Public Service Commission dated November IS, 1972, denying the application of Jacksonville Transfer & Storage, Inc. to extend its Certificates of Public Convenience No. 582 and Order No. 10476, dated January 18, 1973, denying petition for reconsideration. By separate certiorari petition, we also have for review Order No. 10374, dated November 24, 1972, granting the application of M. R. & R. Trucking Company to extend its Certificate No. 11 to authorize the transportation of general commodities between Gainesville and Fannin Springs, and between Williston and Orlando, and Order No. 10468, dated January 18, 1973, denying petition for reconsideration by this Court.

Our examination of the petitions, the records and briefs, and oral argument of counsel sustain the view that the findings of the Public Service Commission are supported by competent substantial evidence and that in entering its orders respondent Commission met the essential requirements of law.

Accordingly, the petitions for writs of certiorari are denied.

It is so ordered.

CARLTON,' C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.

ERVIN, J., dissents.

ERVIN, Justice

(dissenting):

I do not wish to belabor this case with a long dissent. I think that fairness and justice would best have been served had both applicants who filed concurrent applications for the freight carriage of general commodities between the City of Orlando and the Florida Panhandle been granted certificates.

I find little justice in the record for favoring only M. R. & R. Trucking Company over Jacksonville Transfer & Storage, Inc.

The chief reason assigned for not making a dual grant was an inconclusive finding that the freight to be transported between the Orlando area and the Panhandle was so small that from the economic standpoint only one carrier should be allowed to transport it.

On its fáce this seems a dubious reason because there was little actual transportation experience, only speculation, to justify the finding since the freight transportation area involved is new territory and the opening up of transportation of general commodities therein, particularly shipping to and from the Atlanta, Georgia area through the Panhandle to and from the Orlando area, portends by its very nature an obvious large increase in trucking transportation.

Aside from this quite apparent potential, it appears there is respectable precedent warranting the initial granting concurrent-'s1 ly to two established carriers equality of "transportation rights, and especially would this precedent seem applicable in a case involving the opening of new shipping territory. Compare Tamiami Trail Tours, Inc. v. Mayo (Fla.1970), 234 So.2d 4, and Tamiami Trail Tours, Inc. v. Railroad Commission (1937), 128 Fla. 25, 174 So. 451.

The hearing examiner agreed the two freight carriers should have been granted concurrent transportation rights. There was evidence strongly supporting this view. I believe the Public Service Commission abused its discretion in this matter when it overruled its examiner. On this record it appears particularly enigmatic why one carrier was favored over the other. More competition and less monopoly lately appears to have been the realistic trend in Commission decisions. This case presents a regrettable and difficult to understand exception.