Case Name: FLORIDA LIMOUSINE SERVICE, INC., et al., Petitioners, v. William H. BEVIS et al., Respondents; GREYHOUND LINES, INC., etc., Petitioners, v. William H. BEVIS et al., Respondents; ORLANDO TRANSIT COMPANY, Petitioners, v. William H. BEVIS et al., Respondents
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1974-11-20
Citations: 304 So. 2d 105
Docket Number: Nos. 43908, 43974 and 43990
Parties: FLORIDA LIMOUSINE SERVICE, INC., et al., Petitioners, v. William H. BEVIS et al., Respondents. GREYHOUND LINES, INC., etc., Petitioners, v. William H. BEVIS et al., Respondents. ORLANDO TRANSIT COMPANY, Petitioners, v. William H. BEVIS et al., Respondents.
Judges: ADKINS, C. J., and ROBERTS, BOYD, DEKLE and OVERTON, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 304
Pages: 105–110

Head Matter:
FLORIDA LIMOUSINE SERVICE, INC., et al., Petitioners, v. William H. BEVIS et al., Respondents. GREYHOUND LINES, INC., etc., Petitioners, v. William H. BEVIS et al., Respondents. ORLANDO TRANSIT COMPANY, Petitioners, v. William H. BEVIS et al., Respondents.
Nos. 43908, 43974 and 43990.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Nov. 20, 1974.
Gregory A. Presnell and William C. Martin, III, Akerman, Senterfitt, Eidson & Wharton, Orlando, for Florida Limousine Service, Inc. and Tamiami Trail Tours, Inc.
John H. Wilbur, Jacksonville for Greyhound Lines Inc., Greyhound Lines-East Div.
Robert C. Matthias Carlton, Fields Ward Emmanuel Smith & Cutler, Orlando for Orlando Transit Co.
Prentice P. Pruitt and L. Keith Pafford, Tallahassee for the Florida Public Service Commission, respondent.
Richard J. Brooks, Altamonte Springs for American Limousine Service, Inc., intervening-respondent.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Our careful considerations and analyses of the several petitions, the records briefs and arguments of counsel in these consolidated cases sustain the view that the findings of the Commission are supported by competent substantial evidence and that in entering its orders Respondent Commission met the essential requirements of law.
Accordingly the several petitions for writ of certiorari herein are
Denied.
It is so ordered.
ADKINS, C. J., and ROBERTS, BOYD, DEKLE and OVERTON, JJ., concur.
McCAIN, J., dissents with opinion.