Case Name: JACKSONVILLE TRANSFER & STORAGE, INC., Petitioner, v. William BEVIS et al., Respondents (two cases)
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1973-07-05
Citations: 282 So. 2d 161
Docket Number: Nos. 43380, 43381
Parties: JACKSONVILLE TRANSFER & STORAGE, INC., Petitioner, v. William BEVIS et al., Respondents (two cases).
Judges: CARLTON,' C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 282
Pages: 161–162

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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.