State v. Yellow Freight System, Inc.
| Decision Date | 09 April 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-800-CR,79-800-CR |
| Citation | 96 Wis.2d 484,292 N.W.2d 361 |
| Parties | STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. YELLOW FREIGHT SYSTEM, INC., Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | Wisconsin Court of Appeals |
Albert Harriman, Asst. Atty. Gen., argued and of counsel, for plaintiff-appellant; Katherine A. Lingle, Asst. Dist. Atty., Kenosha, on brief; Bronson C. La Follette, Atty. Gen., of counsel.
John P. Varda, Madison, argued for defendant-respondent; Michael S. Varda of DeWitt, McAndrews & Sundby, Madison, on the brief.
Before VOSS, P. J., and BROWN and BODE, JJ.
Plaintiff appeals from a trial court decision which found that defendant Yellow Freight System, Inc., a common carrier authorized to operate in interstate commerce, had met the requirements under the International Registration Plan (IRP) for its Illinois and Missouri based vehicles. The trial court held that apportionable fees pursuant to the International Registration Plan would include permit fees; therefore, the defendant does not have to pay permit fees to Wisconsin. We reverse the trial court judgment.
Defendant Yellow Freight is a common carrier in interstate commerce operating through Wisconsin. Defendant has registered vehicles in Illinois and Missouri pursuant to the International Registration Plan, and defendant has paid identification stamp fees (permit fees) in the states in which the vehicles are registered. Plaintiff contends the IRP does not exempt the defendant from the payment of permit fees in Wisconsin.
On appeal, this court addresses the following issues: (1) whether the Wisconsin Statutes require a permit fee only when the vehicle is actually registered in Wisconsin, and (2) whether a permit fee is now a part of the apportionable fees under the International Registration Plan.
The defendant's vehicles were registered either in Missouri or Illinois; this registration was accomplished pursuant to the provisions of the IRP, authorized by sec. 341.405(1), Stats. 1 Section 194.04(2), Stats., provides that no permit shall be issued for any motor vehicle unless the registration required by Chapter 341, Stats., is paid in this state. Defendant maintains that no registration is paid in Wisconsin; therefore, no permit fee is required by virtue of sec. 194.04(2), Stats. We do not agree.
In 24 Op.Att'y.Gen. 743 (1935), the inquiry was whether the Public Service Commission is empowered to issue permits to nonresident private motor carriers for vehicles which were not registered with the Secretary of State but were registered in states with which the Secretary of State had entered into reciprocal agreements under sec. 85.05, Stats. The opinion stated that at first glance, sec. 194.04(2), Stats., would require a negative answer. However, the opinion continued to state the following:
However, sec. 85.01 does not necessarily require a nonresident private motor carrier to register in this state, since exceptions to registration requirements are provided under sec. 85.05, Stats., and, if the motor vehicle in question does not need to be registered in Wisconsin, then there would be no point in insisting upon such registration as a requirement preliminary to issuance of a permit.
In other words, the language in sec. 194.04, subsec. (2), limiting the issuance of permits for motor vehicles to cases where the "registration required by sec. 85.01 shall be paid in this state" must be read with the exceptions to the "requirements of sec. 85.01" in mind. 24 Op.Att'y.Gen. at 744.
Chapter 85, Stats., was the predecessor of much of Chapter 341, Stats. This court believes the language in sec. 194.04(2), Stats., limiting the issuance of permits to cases where the registration shall be paid in Wisconsin, must be read with the exceptions to the requirements of Chapter 341, Stats., in mind. Section 341.405, Stats., provides for the effectuation of the IRP, which specifically allows registration to be paid in other states. Keeping in mind this exception to the usual registration requirements of Chapter 341, Stats., this court does not believe the language in sec. 194.04(2), Stats., necessitates the conclusion that no permit fee is required unless the registration is actually paid in Wisconsin.
The plaintiff contends reciprocity is granted only to apportionable fees, and apportionable fees are those required for licensing or registration. According to the plaintiff, permit fees are not required for licensing or registration so the IRP does not include the apportionment of permit fees. Thus, an exemption from the payment of permit fees should not be granted.
The International Registration Plan, art. I, § E, states that the purpose of the agreement is "to grant reciprocity to proportionally registered fleets of vehicles." 2 Reciprocity means that an apportionable vehicle properly registered shall be exempt from further registration by any other member jurisdiction. 3 Under the IRP, each member state receives a share of the apportionable fees based upon vehicle miles traveled in the state.
An apportionable fee is defined as "any periodic recurring fee required for licensing or registering vehicles, such as, but not limited to, registration fees, license or weight fees." 4 As art. III, § B indicates, the agreement concerns only apportionable fees. 5 This part of the agreement indicates that all other fees shall be paid to each jurisdiction in accordance with the laws in that jurisdiction. The plaintiff contends the permit fee is not an apportionable fee.
The apportionable fee definition does not specifically mention permit fees. However, the definition specifies that an apportionable fee is one required for licensing or registration. The trial court found the permit fees would qualify as apportionable fees. We disagree.
The construction by the trial court of the IRP and the Wisconsin Statutes are questions of law. This court is not bound by the trial court's interpretation, and the construction may be redetermined independently on appeal. See Wisconsin Bingo Supply and Equipment Co. v. Wisconsin Bingo Control Bd., 88 Wis.2d 293, 308, 276 N.W.2d 716, 723 (1979); Milwaukee Federation of Teachers, Local 252 v. WERC, 83 Wis.2d 588, 598, 266 N.W.2d 314, 318-19 (1978); Pleasure Time, Inc. v. Kuss, 78 Wis.2d 373, 379, 254 N.W.2d 463, 467 (1977).
Section 341.04, Stats., provides that it is unlawful to operate upon the highway a vehicle for which a registration fee is prescribed unless the vehicle is registered, an application for registration has been delivered or mailed, or the vehicle is exempt from registration. In general, the registration requirements found in Chapter 341, Stats., were enacted for two purposes: (1) to raise revenue, and (2) to aid law enforcement by furnishing means of identifying a vehicle and its owner in case of loss, theft or other violation of the law. See Commercial Credit Corp. v. Schneider, 265 Wis. 264, 267, 61 N.W.2d 499, 501 (1953). On the other hand, the paramount goal sought to be attained by the regulation of motor carriers through Chapter 194, Stats., is that of providing adequate motor transportation service to meet the public needs. See Motor Transport Co. v. Public Service Comm., 263 Wis. 31, 38, 56 N.W.2d 548, 551 (1953). Chapter 194, Stats., was designed to prevent imprudent, wasteful and unnecessary duplication of service. Motor Transport Co., supra, at 42, 56 N.W.2d at 553. Fees provided in Chapter 194, Stats., and collected against operations in interstate commerce are assessed as partial compensation for the use of the highways and policing of the same. Sec. 194.03(2), Stats. The legislative intent in enacting Chapter 194, Stats., is further expressed in sec. 194.02, Stats.:
It is hereby declared to be the purpose and policy of the legislature in enacting chapter 194 to confer upon the commission and department the power, authority and duty to supervise and regulate the transportation of persons and property by motor vehicles upon or over the public highways of this state...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Home Builders of Mississippi v. City of Madison, Miss.
...to "identify authorized vehicles for regulatory purposes." Schneider Transport, 657 F.2d at 132 (citing Wisconsin v. Yellow Freight System, Inc., 96 Wis.2d 484, 292 N.W.2d 361 (1980), aff'd, 101 Wis.2d 142, 303 N.W.2d 834 14. Rule 16(a) of the Mississippi's Rules of Appellate Procedure prov......
-
San Juan Cellular Telephone Co. v. Public Service Com'n of Puerto Rico
...to "identify authorized vehicles for regulatory purposes." Schneider Transport, 657 F.2d at 132 (citing Wisconsin v. Yellow Freight System, Inc., 96 Wis.2d 484, 292 N.W.2d 361 (1980), aff'd, 101 Wis.2d 142, 303 N.W.2d 834 (1981)). And, the Fourth Circuit has found that a levy on milk sales ......
-
Schneider Transport, Inc. v. Cattanach
...argument that the fees are "regulatory licensing fees" is belied by these provisions. See State of Wisconsin v. Yellow Freight System, Inc., 96 Wis.2d 484, 487-92, 292 N.W.2d 361 (1980), aff'd. 101 Wis.2d 142, 303 N.W.2d 834 (1981) (comparing permit fees, whose purpose is to identify author......
-
Yao v. Bd. of Regents of University of Wisconsin Sys.
...671 (1977) (reliance on contemporaneous law review articles by sponsors or drafters of legislation); State v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 96 Wis. 2d 484, 490, 292 N.W.2d 361 (Ct. App. 1980) (purpose of statutory regulation of motor carriers), aff'd, 101 Wis. 2d 142, 303 N.W.2d 834 5. Because......