Arrow Transp. Co. v. Idaho Public Utilities Commission
| Decision Date | 25 February 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 9197,9197 |
| Citation | 85 Idaho 307,379 P.2d 422 |
| Parties | ARROW TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, Appellant, v. IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Respondent. In the Matter of the Investigation of the Motor Carrier Operations of Arrow Transportation Company, Portland, Oregon. |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Robert Hollis, Portland, Or., Maurice Greene, Boise, for appellant.
Frank L. Benson, Atty. Gen., John B. Kugler, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., Boise, for respondent.
Under date of December 31, 1951, the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (hereinafter referred to as Commission) issued to appellant a common carrier permit No. 184 which authorized appellant to transport 'liquid petroleum products and bulk liquid commodities (except milk and cream and those requiring temperature control) over irregular routes throughout the entire state.'
On March 11, 1955, the Commission issued its 'Order to show cause No. 94' whereby appellant was ordered to appear at a Commission hearing, on March 23, 1955. Appellant appeared at the time and place specified in said order. As a result of said hearing the Commission, on October 4, 1955, entered its order No. 3499, which canceled appellant's permit No. 184 and in lieu thereof ordered the issuance to appellant of a restricted permit referred to as 'First amended IPUC permit No. 184'.
On October 24, 1955, appellant filed petition for rehearing which was denied by the Commission's order No. 3559, dated November 3, 1955.
Under date of October 16, 1961, the Commission issued its general order No. 117, which in substance notified appellant that a rehearing would be granted upon appellant's petition therefor. A petition was filed and a rehearing was granted by Commission's order No. 6239, dated February 16, 1962. At the hearing thereafter held appellant did not offer any evidence, but submitted a motion requesting that an order be entered confirming appellant's original permit No. 184 and that all Commission orders previously entered affecting such permit be vacated. Under date of April 20, 1962, the Commission entered its order No. 6373 denying appellant's said motion. This appeal is taken from the order denying said motion.
Appellant assigns as error the action of the Commission in (1) determining it had jurisdiction to proceed under 'Showcause' procedure; (2) in refusing to vacate its prior orders; and (3) in refusing to restore appellant's operating authority as it existed prior to the initiation of the 'Show-cause' proceeding.
It is appellant's contention that the Commission was without jurisdiction, at any time under the proceedings disclosed by the record, to reduce the scope of operations authorized by appellant's original permit No. 184, and thereafter erred in refusing to restore to appellant the operating authority granted thereunder.
It is difficult to ascertain from respondent's brief in what classification respondent urges the court to place this original permit No. 184. It is argued by respondent that (1) the permit was void; (2) that it was only a temporary permit; and (3) that it was inadvertently issued.
The statutory authorization for the issuance of the original permit No. 184 is contained in the 1951 amendment of I.C. § 61-802, the pertinent portion of which provides:
'provided that any motor carrier or a predecessor in interest, shall have been in bona fide operation on January 1, 1952 over the route or routes or within the territory for which application is made and has so operated since that time, the commission shall issue such permit without requiring further proof that public interest will be served by such operation.'
The record shows that pursuant to said provision appellant made its application for and received a permit (No. 184) dated December 31, 1951, which contains the following quoted language:
'PERMIT FOR THE OPERATION OF MOTOR PROPELLED VEHICLES
'ARROW TRANSPORTATION COMPANY of P.O. Box 9531, PORTLAND 10, Ore.
(Name)
(Address)
'having complied with the requirements of the laws of the State of Idaho, and the rules and regulations of this Commission with reference to the issuance of a permit, is hereby authorized to furnish Common Carrier service by means of motor propelled vehicles from the 1st day of January, 1952, under the provisions of Title 61, Chapter No. 8, Idaho Code, with the equipment as listed and set forth in application for this permit on file in the office of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission, which application is hereby referred to and by reference made a part hereof, * * *'
Said permit does not contain any language or provision indicating that it was issued as a temporary or special permit. In fact, the testimony of R. W. Shirley, Director of Transportation for the Idaho Public Utilities Commission, given at a hearing before the Commission on March 28, 1962, is to the effect that the conditions stated in appellant's permit No. 184 and in the permits issued before and since have remained unchanged.
Said permit shows upon its face that appellant complied with all requirements with reference to its proper issuance. It remained in full force and effect and constituted appellant's operating authority for a period of more than three years before any attempt was made to change it. We conclude that said permit became a valid permit upon its issuance.
On March 11, 1955, the Commission issued its 'Order to show cause No. 94' under which appellant was directed to appear before the Commission at a hearing to be held March 23, 1955, and there to submit proof of its operations, under the authority contained in said permit, handled by it for the years 1951, 1952, 1953 and the first six months of 1954. Appellant appeared and presented proof as requested. No evidence, other than that submitted by appellant, was offered at said hearing. Thereafter, on October 4, 1955, the Commission entered its order No. 3499, wherein it found:
'I
'THAT the respondent carrier has shown to have been in bona fide operation in Idaho intrastate commerce on January 1, 1952, and since that time within a portion of the territory previously authorized and as hereinafter set forth in the ordering paragraph.
'II
'THAT the respondent carrier has not shown, except as hereinbefore found, that the service originally authorized under its IPUC Permit No. 184 is in the public interest.
'III
'THAT the Commission has no authority to grant the scope of operations originally issued to respondent carrier.'
The order following said findings directed the cancellation of appellant's original permit and in lieu thereof the issuance of a restricted permit designated as 'First amended IPUC permit No. 184'. Appellant regularly petitioned for a rehearing on said order, which was denied.
Following the decision of this Court in Grover v. Idaho Public Utilities Commission, 83 Idaho 351, 364 P.2d 167, and by reason of said decision, the Commission, under date of October 16, 1961, issued its general order No. 117 directing in substance that appellant was entitled to a rehearing on the Commission's order No. 3499 if petitioned for within 90 days. Such petition was filed and rehearing set for March 28, 1962. At said rehearing appellant declined to introduce evidence, but did submit its motion requesting that appellant's original permit No. 184 be confirmed, contending that the Commission was without jurisdiction, in the proceedings had, to reduce the scope of operations authorized by the original permit No. 184.
Since the Commission's order No. 3499 is the one which directed the cancellation of appellant's original permit, its validity or invalidity is determinative of the principal issue here presented. Said order was issued following the hearing had pursuant to respondent's 'Order to show cause No. 94'.
The authority of the Commission to proceed under an order to show cause such as is here involved was considered by this Court in Allied Van Lines, Inc. v. Idaho Public Utilities Commission, 79 Idaho 220, 312 P.2d 1050, and also in Grover v. Idaho Public Utilities Commission, supra, wherein it was held that the Commission was without authority under said proceeding to revoke a permit.
In said cases, as in the instant case, the proceedings called for by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Utah Power & Light Co. v. Idaho Public Utilities Com'n
...1353 (1977); Lemhi Tel. Co. v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., 98 Idaho 692, 571 P.2d 753 (1977); Arrow Transp. Co. v. Idaho Public Utilities Comm'n, 85 Idaho 307, 379 P.2d 422 (1963). As a general rule, administrative authorities are tribunals of limited jurisdiction and their jurisdictio......
-
Alpert v. Boise Water Corp., s. 17625
...P.2d 1353 (1977); Lemhi Tel. Co. v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., 98 Idaho 692, 571 P.2d 753 (1977); Arrow Transp. Co. v. Idaho Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 85 Idaho 307, 379 P.2d 422 (1963). As a general rule, administrative authorities are tribunals of limited jurisdiction and their jurisdictio......
-
Lemhi Telephone Co. v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co.
...in entirety from the enabling statutes, and " nothing is presumed in favor of its jurisdiction." Arrow Transp. Co. v. Idaho Public Utilities Comm'n, 85 Idaho 307, 379 P.2d 422 (1963). See, also, Tri-County Electric Assoc. v. City of Gillette, 525 P.2d 3 (Wyo.1974); Chicago, Burlington & Qui......
-
Washington Water Power Co. v. Kootenai Environmental Alliance, 12509
...1353 (1977); Lemhi Tel. Co. v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., 98 Idaho 692, 571 P.2d 753 (1977); Arrow Transp. Co. v. Idaho Public Utilities Comm'n, 85 Idaho 307, 379 P.2d 422 (1963). As a general rule, administrative authorities are tribunals of limited jurisdiction and their jurisdictio......