Columbus-Suburban Coach Lines, Inc. v. Public Utilities Commission
Decision Date | 17 December 1969 |
Docket Number | COLUMBUS-SUBURBAN,No. 69-235,69-235 |
Citation | 254 N.E.2d 8,49 O.O.2d 445,20 Ohio St.2d 125 |
Parties | , 49 O.O.2d 445 COACH LINES, INC., et al., Appellants, v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION of Ohio, Appellee. |
Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
On May 3, 1967, Executive Motor Livery, Inc., applied to the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to transport persons and baggage over irregular routes to and from Columbus, Ohio. The applicant proposed to use seven-passenger Cadillac limousines mainly in Columbus, but also to other parts of Ohio.
A motion to dismiss the application was filed by the appellants on the basis that the appellee was without jurisdiction to issue the certificate. The appellee denied that motion and the application was heard before an attorney examiner who found that the applicant was a motor transportation company and recommended that the application be granted. On December 9, 1968, the appellee issued its order overruling appellants' exceptions to the examiner's finding and recommendation, adopted the attorney examiner's report and ordered issuance of the certificate. Thereafter, the appellants' motions for a rehearing were denied. On April 3, 1969, appellants filed a notice of their intention to appeal to this court.
Taylor C. Burneson, Columbus, Donald A. Finkbeiner, Toledo, Barrett Elkins, Cleveland, James M. Burtch, Columbus, Howard Gould, David Reichert and Stephen D. Strauss, Cincinnati, for appellants.
Paul W. Brown, Atty. Gen., Scheldon A. Taft and Gerald P. Wadkowski, Columbus, for appellee.
The sole question raised by this appeal is whether the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio has the authority under Section 4921.02, Revised Code, to issue a certificate of public convenience and necessity to a corporation for the transportation of both persons and property, for hire, by motorpropelled vehicles, over public highways in this state by irregular routes.
Prior to 1937, the predecessor to Section 4921.02, Revised Code, Section 614-84, General Code (113 Ohio Laws 482, 485), stated:
'* * * the words 'irregular route' shall be understood to refer to that portion of the public highway over which is conducted or provided any other operation of any motor propelled vehicle by a motor transportation company.'
That statute was amended in 1937 (117 Ohio Laws 349, 351) to read:
'* * * The words 'irregular route' shall be understood to refer to that portion of the public highway over which is conducted or provided any other operation of any motor vehicle by a motor transportation company transporting property.' (Emphasis added.)
Since 1937, the plain and unambiguous statutory language has declared that only property may be transported over an irregular route.
Appellee argues that the applicant in this case is a motor transportation company subject to its jurisdiction and that its findings thereon are not manifestly against the weight of the evidence. Appellee suggests that, although the significance of the 1937 amendment to the statutory definition of 'irregular route' cannot be easily explained, the amendment should not be construed as restricting its authority, under Chapter 4921, Revised Code, to issue a certificate of public convenience and necessity to this applicant.
An examination of the legislative history of Section 4921.02, Revised Code, reveals that the amendment to the definition of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Sealey
...of release, and (b) the DRC decides whether it has done so. See generally Columbus-Suburban Coach Lines v. Pub. Utils. Comm. , 20 Ohio St.2d 125, 127, 254 N.E.2d 8 (1969) ("In determining legislative intent it is the duty of this court to give effect to the words used, not to delete words u......
-
State v. Delvallie
...of release, and (b) the DRC decides whether it has done so. See generally Columbus-Suburban Coach Lines v. Pub. Utils. Comm. , 20 Ohio St.2d 125, 127, 254 N.E.2d 8 (1969) ("In determining legislative intent it is the duty of this court to give effect to the words used, not to delete words u......
-
State v. White, 2009–1661.
...City School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 58 Ohio St.2d 1, 4, 387 N.E.2d 1222 (1979), quoting Columbus–Suburban Coach Lines v. Pub. Util. Comm., 20 Ohio St.2d 125, 127, 254 N.E.2d 8 (1969). {¶ 80} Bearing these principles in mind, it is improper for this court to insert words into a clear statute. R.C......
-
Wayt v. DHSC, LLC, 2016CA00215
...[in a statute], not to delete words used or to insert words not used."Columbus-Surburban97 N.E.3d 938Coach Lines v. Pub. Util. Comm., 20 Ohio St.2d 125, 127 (1969). "Statutes that explicitly refer to each other are read in pari materia so as to give effect to each statute."Faieta v. World H......