Court Opinion

ID: 9470597
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 03:10:38.659011+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:42:00.170581
License: Public Domain

POOLE, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I agree that the decision of the Commission granting Wilson authority to transport general commodities between ocean ports in California, Oregon and Washington should be affirmed. I dissent, however, from that portion of the majority’s decision affirming the grant of authority by the Commission which allows Wilson to transport goods between the ports and inland locations in the three states as well.
The Commission and the majority both overstate the evidence purporting to support an authorization to Wilson to provide transportation anywhere within the three-state area. The only nonport cities specifically named in the supporting shipper statements were Fresno and Bakersfield. And, contrary to the majority’s assertion, Fresno and Bakersfield were mentioned by only one shipper, Trans-Pacific.1 No inland *902cities in Oregon and Washington were specifically named at all. Only one other shipper, Norton, Lilly, made even a general claim that it would move freight to and possibly from Oregon and Washington.
These statements are not sufficient to support the broad authorization the Commission granted Wilson for statewide transportation in California, Oregon and Washington. In Containerfreight Corp. v. United States, 685 F.2d 329, 332 (9th Cir.1982), this court held that a grant of statewide authority needs support from at least a “representative number” of municipalities in the state. Although there was substantial evidence in this case of a need for service at widely dispersed points in the three states, the locations are all port cities, except for Fresno and Bakersfield. This showing of a need in port cities is not “representative” of a need for transportation services throughout the three states. In fact, it is a clear indication that the needs of shippers could have been served as well by a grant of authority for transportation between ports in California, Oregon and Washington only.
The majority fails effectively to distinguish Containerfreight, where only recently we held that the statements of three shippers supporting transportation service in Northern California did not justify a statewide grant of authority. Here, as in Con-tainerfreight, the statements of the supporting shippers relate, with the exception of Trans Pacific, to a circumscribed and clearly defined area — West Coast port cities.
In addition, the evidence supporting Wilson’s application concentrated on services shippers required between port cities. Since “[applications have been denied to the extent that they exceed the demonstrated need for the proposed services,” Containerfreight, 685 F.2d at 332, the Commission’s decision to allow Wilson to transport commodities between port and inland locations in the three states should have been set aside.

. Three of the eleven shipper statements originally offered in support of Lodi’s application were actually submitted by Trans Pacific *902Transportation Co., the shipping agent for the three. The Commission considered the evidence of these three steamship lines as that of Trans Pacific.