Grover v. Idaho Public Utilities Commission
| Decision Date | 28 June 1961 |
| Docket Number | 8875-8880,Nos. 8861-8863,s. 8861-8863 |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Investigation of the Motor Carrier Operations of: Louis C. GROVER, Wayne, Eugene and Glen Eby, dba Eby Brothers, Freeman Pack and Dan Pack, dba Pack Truck Lines, Delbert Lott, Leo J. Handy, dba Handy Truck Lines, Shoemaker Trucking Company, Clarence May & Scott Pearson, dba May Trucking Company, Robert A. Collins, R. V. Estell, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Defendant-Respondent. |
Jay F. Bates, Rigby, Chas. F. McDevitt, Boise, for appellants.
Frank L. Benson, Atty. Gen., B. James Koehler, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Appellants, separate trucking companies, are common carriers engaged in intrastate transportation of commodities for hire. None operate between fixed termini or over regular routes. Respondent is the Idaho Public Utilities Commission. The separate appeals here consolidated challenge orders of respondent cancelling appellants' original carrier permits and denying applications for rehearing.
Prior to January 1, 1952, appellants operated without permits, the then-existing statute covered only carriers operating between fixed termini or over regular routes, I.C. § 61-801, subd. e and § 61-802. Carriers operating over irregular routes were brought within the statute by S.L.1951, ch. 291, which, inter alia, amended I.C. § 61-802 to provide:
'Permit Required*--Scope Of Permit--Commission May Refuse Permit.--It shall be unlawful for any motor carrier, as the term is defined in this chapter, to operate any motor vehicle in motor transportation without first having obtained from the Commission a permit covering such operation.
'A permit shall be issued to any qualified applicant authorizing the whole or any part of his operations covered by the application made to the commission in accordance with the provisions of this chapter, if it is found that the applicant is fit, willing, and able properly to perform the service proposed and to conform to the provisions of this chapter and the requirements, rules and regulations of the commission thereunder, and that the proposed service, to the extent authorized by the permit, is or will be in the public interest, 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 [the] 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.' (Emphasis added). (Later amended S.L.1959, Ch. 79, § 1, pg. 177.)
Pursuant to this provision appellants were granted permits, under which they operated until 1954, then each received from the commission what purported to be an 'Order to Show Cause,' the material parts of which are as follows:
'Whereas, each of the below named motor carriers holders of IPUC Permits, were issued its said permit originally under the so-called 'Grandfather Clause' as provided in Section 61-802, and
'Whereas there appears to be some question whether each of the said carriers is entitled to all the authority contained in its said permit as granted under the aforementioned 'Grandfather Clause', and
'Whereas there appears to be some question as to whether each of the said carriers is operating over the whole of its route as is required by Section 61-805, Idaho Code.
'Order
'It Is Therefore Ordered, that each of the below named motor carriers shall appear at a hearing at the time and place designated below; and'
'It Is Further Ordered that each of the said carriers shall be prepared to submit proof of its operations under the authority contained in its said Permit, consisting of original freight bills, or abstracts thereof and supplemented by oral testimony on Idaho Intrastate Traffic handled by it for the years 1951, 1952, 1953 and for the first six months of 1954. * * *'
Appellants appeared and presented proof as required. No other evidence was presented by the commission or by anyone else; no further hearings were held; nor did the commission take any other action to inform appellants of any intention to revoke their permits. Appellants had no notice that they were being charged with violation of the commission's orders, rules or regulations, or laws of the state. For all that appeared, the individual hearings, each conducted before a single member of the commission, were for the sole purpose of gathering information.
The commission, on the basis of facts presented to the individual member in the respective cases, found that appellants were in bona fide operation in Idaho in intrastate commerce on January 1, 1952; that since that time the bona fide operation of each carrier was only within a portion of the territory previously authorized; that each carrier had failed to show its operation to be in the public interest. The commission determined it had no authority to grant permits so extensive in scope as those originally granted to appellants. It then issued orders cancelling appellants' permits and issued new restricted permits.
For approximately five years appellants operated under these new, restricted permits, certain of the appellants applying for, and securing, amendments of such new permits. In November, 1959, and January, 1960, appellants applied to the commission for rehearing on the cancellation of their original permits. These appeals were taken from the denial of such applications.
In Allied Van Lines, Inc. v. Idaho Public Utilities Commission, 79 Idaho 220, 312 P.2d 1050, 1053, this court considered facts substantially the same as those now before us. In that case, a general state-wide permit was considered pursuant to an 'Order to Show Cause', which order had the same phraseology as the one in the case at hand. The procedures for review therein are similar to those followed in the instant case. In the Allied Van Lines case we held that the Idaho Public Utilities Commission was without authority to revoke such original permits by a summary procedure, but that a full hearing was required in compliance with I.C. § 61-808. We said in that case:
'The proceedings called for by such Order to Show Cause were non-adversary, were not for the trial of any charge against appellant, but were for the purpose of supplying information to the Commission.
* * *
* * *
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Minidoka County for Use and Benefit of Detweiler Bros., Inc. v. Krieger
...satisfy respondents' claims. A waiver is the intentional and voluntary relinquishment of a known right. Grover v. Idaho Public Utilities Commission, 83 Idaho 351, 364 P.2d 167 (1961); Crouch v. Bischoff, 78 Idaho 364, 304 P.2d 646 (1956). The presumption attains that in the absence of an af......
-
Bowler v. Board of Trustees of School Dist. No. 392, Shoshone County, Mullan
...the doctrine of laches. Laches, however, requires a showing of prejudice to the party asserting it. E. g., Grover v. Idaho Public Utilities Comm'n, 83 Idaho 351, 364 P.2d 167 (1961). The board has failed to demonstrate that the thirteen month delay has resulted in any prejudice. It would be......
-
Huppert v. Wolford
...or placed at a disadvantage by such delay. Finucane v. Village of Hayden, 86 Idaho 199, 384 P.2d 236; Grover v. Idaho Public Utilities Commission, 83 Idaho 351, 364 P.2d 167; Despain v. Despain, 78 Idaho 185, 300 P.2d 500; Flora v. Gusman, 76 Idaho 188, 279 P.2d The admitted delay between t......
-
Kent v. Idaho Public Utilities Commission
...Court in Allied Van Lines v. Idaho Public Utilities Commission, 79 Idaho 220, 312 P.2d 1050 (1957) and Grover v. Idaho Public Utilities Commission, 83 Idaho 351, 364 P.2d 167 (1961) stated that an order to show cause proceeding was insufficient to deprive a permit holder of his permit. This......