Link Trucking, Inc. v. Public Service Commission of Utah, 13560
| Decision Date | 26 September 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 13560,13560 |
| Citation | 526 P.2d 1184 |
| Parties | LINK TRUCKING, INC., Plaintiff, v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF UTAH et al., Defendants. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Vernon B. Romney, Atty. Gen., G. Blaine Davis, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salt Lake City, for Public Service Commission.
Harry D. Pugsley, Salt Lake City, for Dalbo.
Thomas M. Zarr, Salt Lake City, for Bowen and Northwestern.
On its own initative, the Public Service Commission entered into an investigation and suspension proceeding with respect to the rates, tariffs, practices and authority of Link Trucking, Inc., (hereinafter referred to as Link) in the transportation of bulk oil field drilling fluids. The plaintiff is here seeking a review of the proceedings and the order of the Commission.
The Commission ordered Link to cease and desist from transporting hydrafracturing fluids, salt water brine, water and other fluids used for the purpose of drilling, completing, reworking and perpetuation of oil wells in Utah, and it also cancelled the tariff of Link for the transport of the above mentioned materials in tank vehicles.
Prior to September, 1972, Link had not engaged in the transportation of drilling fluids. Thereafter Link leased equipment suitable for the purpose and commenced hauling oil field drilling fluids in bulk in November, 1972. Link continued to transport drilling fluids until shortly prior to the hearing of this matter by the Commission on May 23, 1973.
In the years prior to the occurrences now under consideration Link and its predecessors have held a certificate of public convenience and necessity. The authority granted to Link is in the following language:
To operate as a common carrier by motor vehicle for the transportation of general commodities except acid and petroleum products in bulk, and except commodities which by reason of their weight, size and shape require special equipment and special handling, over regular and irregular routes as follows: . . .
The basic issue in this proceeding is the interpretation to be given Link's authority to transport general commodities, and whether or not bulk oil field drilling fluids used come within that classification. The Link certificate excludes authority to transport commodities 'which by reason of their weight, size and shape require special equipment and special handling.' After the hearing of this matter, the Commission found that Link's authority embraces general commodities with specific exclusions and the drilling fluids are commodities which by reason of their weight, size and shape require special equipment and special handling and are consequently not embraced...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
AAA Cooper Transp. v. Louisiana Public Service Com'n
...may not use other equipment. See State v. Apollo Transports, Inc., 596 S.W.2d 618 (Tex.Civ.App.1980); Link Trucking, Inc. v. Public Serv. Comm. of Utah, 526 P.2d 1184 (Ut.1974); Telischak Trucking, Inc. v. Mich. Pub. Serv. Comm., 11 Mich.App. 23, 160 N.W.2d 592 (1968). Consequently, when th......
-
Skjonsby Truck Line, Inc. v. Elkin, 10224
...1977); Besl Corporation v. Public Utilities Commission, 45 Ohio St.2d 146, 341 N.E.2d 835 (1976); Link Trucking, Incorporated v. Public Service Commission of Utah, 526 P.2d 1184 (Utah 1974); Stony's Trucking Company v. Public Utilities Commission, 32 Ohio St.2d 139, 290 N.E.2d 565 (1972); S......