Allen Bonded Warehouse, Inc. v. Mayo, 40464
| Decision Date | 21 April 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 40464,40464 |
| Citation | 247 So.2d 51 |
| Parties | ALLEN BONDED WAREHOUSE, INC. et al., Petitioners, v. William T. MAYO, Jerry L. Carter and Jess Yarborough, as and constituting the Florida Public Service Commission, Respondents. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Richard H. Wilson of Hill, Hill & Dickenson, Tampa, for petitioners.
Lewis W. Petteway, Gen. Counsel and Donald R. Alexander, Tallahassee, Staff Counsel for Fla. Public Service Comm., respondents.
Sol H. Proctor of Proctor & Cain, Jacksonville, for intervenor-respondent.
By petition for writ of certiorari pursuant to Fla.Stat. § 350.641, F.S.A., we have for review an order of the Public Service Commission granting permanent authority to J-W Moving & Storage, Inc., to carry household goods in Pasco and Pinellas counties, with equipment domiciled at Largo. The Commission's order reversed the recommendation of the hearing examiner.
The facts of this case are as follows: Applicant J-W Moving & Storage, Inc. requested temporary and permanent authority from the Public Service Commission to operate as a motor common carrier of household goods between points in Pasco and Pinellas counties with equipment domiciled at Largo. The hearing examiner conducted a public hearing, made findings of fact, and recommended denial of the application for permanent authority. The Commission denied the application as to temporary authority, but entered an order granting permanent authority to J-W Moving & Storage, Inc. to carry household goods. This petition followed to review that order.
Petitioners urge several questions on this Court. All reduce to a single issue: Whether the Commission's order is supported by competent, substantial evidence. It is settled law that a reviewing court will not overturn the decision of a Florida administrative agency, if that decision is supported by competent, substantial evidence in the record, and if the decision is not arbitrary or unreasonable. Florida Rate Conference v. Florida Railroad and Public Utilities Commission, 108 So.2d 601 (Fla.1959).
Petitioners urge in this Court as they urged before the hearing examiner and the Commission, that J-W Moving & Storage, Inc. is attempting to establish its business in an area already adequately served. This question was decided adversely to petitioners by both the hearing examiner and the Commission. The issue turns on the amount and nature of proof which the applicant must make. Where an application is sought to service an area already served, the standards must be applied which were delineated by this Court in Wells Fargo Armored Service Corp. v. Mason, 196 So.2d 419 (Fla.1966). This is to say, the applicant must prove that his proposed service is necessary as well as desirable for the public, that existing service is inadequate, and that the granting of a new certificate would not adversely affect existing carriers. The hearing examiner and Commission concluded that applicant's burden of proof in this case was that announced by this Court in Fogarty Brothers Transfer, Inc. v. Boyd, 109 So.2d 883 (Fla.1959), a case which concerned a new domicile point for a carrier with authority to serve intrastate points. This Court stated that
'(T)he degree of proof necessary to establish the requisite public convenience and necessity for a new domicile point will be less exacting than that required of a carrier upon application for an original certificate or an extension of existing service.' (Page 890)
Examination of the record, and of the examiner's recommendation and the Commission's order, persuades that sufficient competent evidence was presented to justify use of the proof standard announced in Fogarty Brothers Transfer, Inc. v. Boyd, Supra, rather than the more difficult standard announced in Wells Fargo Armored Service Corp. v. Mason, Supr...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stewart Bonded Warehouse, Inc. v. Bevis
...Transfer, Inc. v. Boyd, 109 So.2d 883 (Fla.1959), and applied to household goods carriers' applications in Allen Bonded Warehouse, Inc. v. Mayo, 247 So.2d 51 (Fla.1971). We find that it is not supported by competent, substantial evidence, even under this 'relaxed In Blocker's Transfer & Sto......
-
Fargo Van & Storage, Inc. v. Bevis
...is inadequate and that the granting of a new certificate would not adversely affect existing carriers. See Allen Bonded Warehouse, Inc., v. Mayo, 247 So.2d 51 (Fla., 1971). In this case, the applicant proved only his capability to deal with the Spanish-speaking community, but there was no s......
-
A-1 Bus Lines, Inc. v. Bevis, A--1
...is served by another certificate holder, the applicant for a new certificate has a heavy burden of proof. In Allen Bonded Warehouse, Inc. v. Mayo, 247 So.2d 51, 52 (Fla.1971), the Court The issue turns on the amount and nature of proof which the applicant must make. Where an application is ......