Court Opinion

ID: 9760240
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:43:49.5869+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:09.614702
License: Public Domain

PHILLIPS, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
I withdraw my former opinion and submit the following:
I respectfully dissent and would hold these appellants have the requisite standing to bring suit.
Section 20 of the Motor Carrier Act1 states “if any motor carrier or other party at interest be dissatisfied with any decision ... adopted by the Commission ... such dissatisfied person ... may file a petition ... in the District Court ... against said Commission as defendant.”
Appellants Leagues and Traffic Conferences representing a plethora of shippers, appeared and pleaded their case, first before the Railroad Commission and subsequently before the trial court. Neither forum rejected jurisdiction on the standing issue.
Some eight to ten individual shippers testified, in detail, as to how the rate changes sought would affect their livelihoods and cause them economic harm. This is the sine qua non for any rate hearing on this earth. Each shipper who testified could have brought an appeal in his own right, under section 20 of the Texas Motor Carrier Act. When an association brings suit based solely on the injuries inflicted on its members, it must provide proof: 1) the associations’ members have standing to sue in their own right; 2) the interests the association seeks to protect are germane to the organization’s purpose; and 3) neither the claim asserted
*209nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit. Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333, 97 S.Ct. 2434, 53 L.Ed.2d 383 (1977). Moreover, their individual appearances at the Railroad Commission hearing, as witnesses for appellants, fully confirms appellants’ authority to represent them in this matter.
There is no question but that associations, such as those at bar, have standing to bring suits in the Texas courts.2 Ironically, ap-pellee Common Carrier Motor Freight Association is one of these.
A statute should be given a fair and sensible construction in order to carry out the purpose for which it was enacted and should not be construed in such a manner as to nullify or defeat its purpose. Salas v. State, 592 S.W.2d 653 (Tex.Civ.App.—Austin 1979, no writ).
The Texas Administrative Procedure and Texas Register Act (Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 6252-13a) is in accord with this holding. Section 19(a) of APA provides persons “aggrieved” by a final decision are entitled to judicial review. See Hooks v. Texas Dept. of Water Resources, 611 S.W.2d 417 (Tex.1981).

. Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 911b (1964).

. Dept. of Agriculture and Environment v. Printing Indus. Ass’n, 600 S.W.2d 264 (Tex.1980); Texas Highway Commis. v. Texas Ass’n of Steel Importers, 372 S.W.2d 525 (Tex.1963).