Smith Terminal Warehouse Co. v. Bevis, 45963
| Decision Date | 19 February 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 45963,45963 |
| Citation | 312 So.2d 721 |
| Parties | SMITH TERMINAL WAREHOUSE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. William H. BEVIS et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Bernard C. Pestcoe, of Pestcoe & Payton, Miami, for petitioner.
Prentice P. Pruitt and Norman H. Horton, Jr., Tallahassee, for respondents.
This is a petition for writ of certiorari to review an order of the respondent, Florida Public Service Commission, denying petitioner's application for a permanent for-hire permit to transport goods from his warehouse in Dade County to points in Broward and Palm Beach Counties. We have jurisdiction. 1
Petitioner presently holds a for-hire permit, issued by the Commission in 1970, to transport freight from his warehouse to points in Dade County in single, casual, nonrecurring trips over irregular routes and schedules, when such transportation is wholly incidental to his warehousing business. In July, 1973, the Commission granted petitioner temporary authority to extend this service to poins in Broward and Palm Beach Counties during the cessation of operations by South Florida Freightways, Inc., or until further notification. Subsequently, a hearing was held to determine whether petitioner should be granted permanent authority to operate in Broward and Palm Beach Counties. Gold Coast Trucking & Express, Inc., and Gator Freightways, Inc., appeared at the hearing to protest this proposed extension of petitioner's service.
Although the petitioner was found qualified as a for-hire carrier, the Commission denied the application on the grounds that public convenience and necessity did not require issuance of the permit and granting the application would adversely affect transportation facilities as a whole in the area concerned. Petitioner then initiated the instant proceeding in this Court, principally contending that there was an improper application of Section 323.05, Florida Statutes, and that the Commission abused its discretion in denying a permanent for-hire permit to petitioner.
We, if sitting as the Commission, might well have granted the permit on the record in this cause. However, it is not the function of this tribunal to substitute its judgment for that of the Commission through its examiners. We find no improper application of the appropriate statutory provisions. On review by certiorari of an administrative order, it is our function to determine whether the order departs from the essential...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
School Bd. of Nassau County v. Arline
...judgment for that of the Board as long as there is substantial competent evidence to support its decision. See Smith Terminal Warehouse Company v. Bevis, 312 So.2d 721 (Fla.1975); Manatee County v. Florida Public Employees Relations Commission, 387 So.2d 446 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Wilson v. P......
-
Redwing Enterprises, Inc. v. Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Dept. of Business Regulation
... ... Smith Terminal Warehouse Co. v. Bevis, ... 312 So.2d 721 ... ...
-
Florida Tel. Corp. v. Mayo
...review of Public Service Commission orders is narrow and Florida Telephone has not fit this case within it. Cf. Smith Terminal Warehouse Co. v. Bevis, 312 So.2d 721 (Fla.1975). Although the Commission has the power to regulate telephone service contracts between telephone companies and thei......