Denver-Laramie-Walden Truck Line, Inc. v. Denver-Fort Collins Freight Service, Inc., DENVER-LARAMIE-WALDEN
| Decision Date | 23 February 1965 |
| Docket Number | DENVER-FORT,No. 20958,DENVER-LARAMIE-WALDEN,20958 |
| Citation | 156 Colo. 366,399 P.2d 242 |
| Parties | , 58 P.U.R.3d 136 TRUCK LINE, INC., a Colorado Corporation, Plaintiff in Error, v.COLLINS FREIGHT SERVICE, INC., a Colorado corporation, John P. Norman, doing business as Motor Tariff Service, the Public utilities Commission of the State of Colorado, and Henry E. Zarlengo, Howard S. Bjelland, and Ralph C. Horton as members thereof, Defendants In Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Hays, Thompson & Johnston, Denver, for plaintiff in error.
McNichols, Nevans, Wallace & Nigro, Denver, Wenke & Johnson, Fort Collins, for defendant in error, Denver-Fort Collins Freight Service, Inc.
Duke Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Atty. Gen., Robert Fullerton, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Robert N. Trunk, John J. Conway, Asst, Attys. Gen., for defendants in error, the Public utilities Commission.
Ernest Porter, Alvin J. Meiklejohn, Jr., Denver, amicus curiae.
The plaintiff in error, Denver-Laramie-Walden Truck Line, will be referred to as D-L-W; the defendant in error, The Public Utilities Commission and Denver-Fort Collins Freight Service, Will be referred to as the PUC and Denver-Ft. Collins. D-L-W, the plaintiff below, brings error from the District Court's dismissal of its complaint.
The record discloses that D-L-W is a motor vehicle common carrier transporting general commodities between Denver and Fort Collins; that the defendant, Denver-Ft. Collins is a motor vehicle private carrier also transporting commodities between Denver and Fort Collins; and that on January 14, 1963, Denver-Ft. Collins published a rate to be collected by it for the transportation of cucumbers in brine between Denver and Fort Collins.
Prior to the Rates becoming effective, D-L-W filed with the PUC a petition for rejection of the rates in question filed by Denver-Ft. Collins. It contended that permitting such rates to go into effect would violate CRS '53, 115-11-12, which requires the PUC to set minimum rates to be collected by private carriers at no lower than the rates prescribed for competing common carriers rendering substantially the same or similar service. The PUC permitted the challenged rate to become effective, but set for hearing a general investigation into the lawfulness of the rate. The hearing has not been held yet.
D-L-W, nevertheless, brought this action in the Denver District Court, alleging that Denver-Ft. Collins was a competing private carrier and that the published rates in question were lower than the rates of competing common carriers rendering the same or substantially similar service. The complaint asked that the trial court enter orders nullifying the rates in question and requiring Denver-Ft. Collins to collect from its shippers the difference between the rates it was collecting and the rates prescribed for common carriers. The defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint were granted, and D-L-W brought error.
The trial court's action in dismissing the complaint was clearly proper. CRS '53, 115-6 outlines the procedures with respect to complaints concerning the reasonableness or lawfulness of rates. It also provides for investigations and hearings.
CRS '53, 115-6-14, as amended by Chapter 199, Session Laws 1961 reads:
'* * * No cause of action arising out of any order or decision of the commission, nor any right to * * * review for the purpose of having the lawfulness of any such order or decision inquired into and determined, shall accrue in any court to any corporation or person, unless such corporation or person shall have made * * * application to the Commission for a rehearing. * * *'
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Collopy v. Wildlife Commission, Dept. of Natural Resources, 79SA43
...this court has adhered rather strictly to the doctrine of exhaustion of remedies, Denver-Laramie-Walden Truck Line, Inc. v. Denver-Fort Collins Freight Service, Inc., 156 Colo. 366, 399 P.2d 242 (1965), "There are few absolutes in the law and the rule that an administrative remedy must be e......
-
Regular Route Common Carrier Conference of Colorado Motor Carriers Ass'n v. Public Utilities Com'n of State of Colo.
...increment in excess of the rates prescribed for competing common carriers. See Denver-Laramie-Walden Truck Line, Inc. v. Denver-Fort Collins Freight Service, Inc., 156 Colo. 366, 370, 399 P.2d 242, 243-44 (1965) (Commission has duty of setting reasonable rates for competing contract carrier......
-
State v. Golden's Concrete Co., 96SC568
...v. Liquor Licensing Auth., 176 Colo. 281, 285, 490 P.2d 299, 301 (1971); Denver-Laramie-Walden Truck Line, Inc. v. Denver-Fort Collins Freight Serv., Inc., 156 Colo. 366, 370, 399 P.2d 242, 243 (1965). If the parties fail to satisfy the exhaustion requirement, the district court is without ......
-
Horrell v. Department of Admin.
...complained of is within the jurisdiction of the administrative authority." Denver-Laramie-Walden Truck Line, Inc. v. Denver-Fort Collins Freight Serv., Inc., 156 Colo. 366, 370, 399 P.2d 242, 243 (1965). This rule prevents piecemeal application for judicial relief and unwarranted interferen......
-
Preparation of the Appeal from an Administrative Decision
...v. Denver, ___ Colo. App. ___, 531 P.2d 643. 19. See Denver-Laramie-Walden Truck Line, Inc. v. Denver-Fort Collins Freight Service, Inc., 156 Colo. 366, 399 P.2d 242; Acosta v. Jansen, 499 P.2d 631 (Colo. App.) (not selected for official publication). 20. See, e.g., Baum v. Denver, 147 Colo......
-
Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies as an Offensive Tool
...v. Bethell, 60 P.3d 779, 784 (Colo.App. 2002), citing Denver-Laramie-Walden Truck Line, Inc. v. Denver-Fort Collins Freight Serv., Inc., 399 P.2d 242, 243 (Colo. 1965). See also State v. Golden's Concrete Co., 962 P.2d 919, 923 (Colo. 1998). 5. See Janssen v. Denver Serv. Career Bd., 998 P.......