Checker, Inc. v. Public Service Commission
| Decision Date | 08 November 1968 |
| Docket Number | 5670,Nos. 5651,s. 5651 |
| Citation | 84 Nev. 623,446 P.2d 981 |
| Parties | CHECKER, INCORPORATED, dba Checker Cab Company, Petitioner, v. The PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION of Nevada, Reese H. Taylor, Jr., Noel A. Clark, and Evo A. Granata, Respondents. Victor F. WHITTLESEA, dba Whittlesea Blue Cab Company, Petitioner-Intervenor, v. The PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION of Nevada, Reese H. Taylor, Jr., Noel A. Clark, and Evo A. Granata, Respondents. Victor F. WHITTLESEA, dba Whittlesea Blue Cab Company, Petitioner, v. The Honorable Liewellyn YOUNG, the Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada and the Public Service Commission of Nevada, Respondents. UNION CAB CO., Petitioner-Intervenor, v. The PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION of Nevada, Reese H. Taylor, Jr., Noel A. Clark, and Evo A. Granata; and the Honorable Llewellyn Young and the Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, Respondents. Ace Cab Company and Yellow Cab Company, Amici Curiae. Cab Employees, Automotive Workers and Warehousemen Local #881, Amicus Curiae. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Elmer M. Gunderson, Las Vegas, for petitioner Checker Inc., dba Checker Cab Co.
Hilbrecht & Jones, Las Vegas, for petitioner Victor F. Whittlesea, dba Whittlesea Blue Cab Co.
Bell & Morris, Las Vegas, for petitioner Union Cab Co.
Harvey Dickerson, Atty. Gen., and John Sheehan, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondents.
Gabe Hoffenberg, Las Vegas, amicus curiae on behalf of Ace Cab Co. and Yellow Cab. Co.
I. R. Ashleman, II, Las Vegas, amicus curiae on behalf of Cab Employees, Automotive Workers and Warehousemen Local #881.
This is an original application by Checker, Incorporated, dba Checker Cab Company and Victor F. Whittlesea dba Whittlesea Blue Cab Company in certiorari to review an order of the Public Service Commission of Nevada dated June 3, 1968. The applicants contend that the entry of the June 3 order, which bears upon the number of taxicabs they and other cab companies may operate in Clark County, was in excess of the Commission's jurisdiction and is void. We agree.
The Commission's order of June 3 was the last in series of orders commencing in December 1966 issued by the Commission and the Eighth Judicial District Court concerning the allocation of taxicabs in Clark County. Because of the confusion that has resulted from these orders and counterorders, it is imperative that the powers and responsibilities of the Commission be clarified, to the end that the taxicab industry, which plays a vital role in the economy of Clark County, be properly controlled and regulated.
1. A threshold issue for our determination is whether the Public Service Commission of Nevada has the power to allocate the number of taxicabs operated by any holder of an unlimited certificate of public convenience and necessity. We hold that it does.
NRS 706.150 1 vests the Public Service Commission with the power and authority to supervise and regulate every common motor carrier of property and passengers in all matters on the highways of this State. Our Legislature has declared taxicab motor carriers as common carriers within the meaning of the public utilities laws of the State. NRS 706.250 2. A public utility has been defined as any partnership, company, or association owning or operating automobiles engaged in transporting persons, for hire as common carriers. NRS 704.020(1)(b) 3.
The purpose and intent of the Legislature in granting the Commission the power to regulate and to promote safe, adequate, and efficient service is specifically set forth in NRS 706.130, as follows:
'1. It is hereby declared to be the purpose and policy of the legislature in enacting this chapter: '(a) To confer upon the commission the power and authority and to make it the duty of the commission to supervise and regulate the common and contractor motor carrying of property and passengers for hire, and to regulate for licensing purposes the private motor carrying of property when used for private commercial enterprises on the public highways of this state, and to confer upon the department the power and authority to license all motor carriers, so as to relieve the existing and all future undue burdens on such highways arising by reason of the use of such highways by motor vehicles in a gainful occupation thereon;
'(b) To provide for reasonable compensation for the use of such highways in such gainful occupations, and enable the State of Nevada, by a utilization of the license fees, to provide more fully for the proper construction, maintenance and repair thereof, and thereby protect the safety and welfare of the traveling and shipping public in their use of the highways; and
'(c) To provide for fair and impartial regulation, to promote safe, adequate, economical and efficient service and foster sound economic conditions in motor transportation, and to encourage the establishment and maintenance of reasonable charges for such transportation services, without unjust discriminations, undue preferences or advantages, or unfair or destructive competitive practices.
The Legislature has also granted police power to the Public Service Commission for the enforcement of the Motor Vehicle Carriers Act 4.
In Reo Bus Lines Co. v. Southern Bus Line Co., 209 Ky. 40, 272 S.W. 18, 20 (1925), the court said:
'Public highways are public property, established, constructed, and maintained at public expense--for public use, and naturally fall under governmental control.
'* * *.
'Clearly, these companies have no vested or inherent right in the highways, and their unrestrained use thereof is equivalent to an appropriation of public property for private use, and it is whthin the power of the Legislature to prohibit this use or to prescribe the terms upon which it may be exercised.'
In Yellow Cab & Baggage Co. v. Publix Cars, 126 Neb. 138, 253 N.W. 80, 84 (1934), the court held:
Oscar L. Pond, in volume 3 of the fourth and last edition (1932) of his 'A Treatise on the Law of Public Utilities,' discusses the subject of the regulation of public utilities and motor vehicle carriers by the State. He says, in sections 754 and 755:
' § 754. Right of state to regulate use of its streets and highways.--The power of the state thus to regulate the use of its public thoroughfares is as fully established and generally recognized as the police power itself upon which it is founded. And as it includes the power to prohibit, the conditions of its exercise and enjoyment are subject to the broadest restrictions and regulations consistent with equality and other constitutional property rights. In fact few legal propositions are more fully and firmly established than the right of the state in the exercise of its police power to regulate or prohibit the use of its streets and highways as places of private business, or as the chief instrumentality of conducting such business as that of operating motor vehicle systems for profit.
'* * *.
' § 755. Regulation for public good.--The The power to prohibit includes the power to regulate even to the extent of prohibition, and the reasonableness of the conditions of regulation may only be questioned in the light of constitutional provisions and limitations imposed upon the legislature. As no one has the inherent right to use the streets and public thoroughfares as a place wherein to conduct a private business, permission so to use them may be afforded certain parties, but always subject to the right to regulate and control their use in the interest of the public and for the common good of all. The public safety and the general business policy of providing public service are logical and necessary questions to consider in determining the nature and extent and in defining the conditions of public regulation and control of motor vehicles operating as common carriers.
'* * *.'
The Supreme Court of Utah held, in McCarthy v. Public Serv. Comm'n, 94 Utah 304, 77 P.2d 331 (1938), that the Legislature may regulate, in the public interest common motor carriers. At page 337, the court said:
'Every such permit, every act of transporation, tends to produce competition for business, and increased activity to get and control business. But competition is not, in itself and always, a benefit to the public or in the public interest; not any more than is monopoly always in the public interest. Rather, it lies in a medium between the two. As well said in a recent case, People's Transit Co. v. Henshaw, 8 Cir., 20 F.2d 87, at page 90:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maheu v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court In and For Clark County, Dept. No. 6
...regarding which the court might have granted protective orders had a proper application been made. Cf. Checker, Inc. v. Public Serv. Commn., 84 Nev. 623, 446 P.2d 981 (1968); cf. Ray v. Stecher, 79 Nev. 304, 383 P.2d 372 (1963); cf. Whitney v. District Court, 68 Nev. 176, 227 P.2d 960 (1951......
-
State v. Eight Judicial Dist. Court, In and For State, Clark County
...or regulate the use and enjoyment of private property. State v. Park, 42 Nev. 386, 178 P. 389 (1919). While Checker, Inc. v. Public Serv. Comm'n, 84 Nev. 623, 446 P.2d 981 (1968), dealt with the legislature's authority to regulate taxicabs, the same general principles are equally applicable......
-
Monroe, Ltd. v. Central Tel. Co., Southern Nevada Division
...regarding which the court might have granted protective orders had a proper application been made. Cf. Checker, Inc., v. Public Serv. Commn., 84 Nev. 623, 446 P.2d 981 (1968); cf. Ray v. Stecher, 79 Nev. 304, 383 P.2d 372 (1963); cf. Whitney v. District Court, 68 Nev. 176, 227 P.2d 960 (195......
-
Public Service Com'n of Nevada v. Southwest Gas Corp., s. 12047
...PSC orders adopted without compliance with the procedural safeguards of the Administrative Procedure Act. In Checker, Inc. v. Public Serv. Comm'n, 84 Nev. 623, 446 P.2d 981 (1968), this court invalidated a commission order because the order had been issued ex parte and without notice and he......