State v. Yellow Freight System, Inc.
| Decision Date | 31 March 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-800-CR,79-800-CR |
| Citation | 101 Wis.2d 142,303 N.W.2d 834 |
| Parties | STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. YELLOW FREIGHT SYSTEM, INC., Defendant-Respondent-Petitioner. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
John H. Lederer, Madison, argued, for petitioner; John P. Varda, DeWitt, Sundby, Huggett & Schumacher, S.C., Madison, on brief.
Albert Harriman, Asst. Atty. Gen., argued, for appellant; Bronson C. La Follette, Atty. Gen., on brief.
This is a review of a decision of the court of appeals 1 reversing a judgment of the circuit court for Kenosha county, the Hon. Michael S. Fisher presiding. After trial, the circuit judge dismissed a number of citations against Yellow Freight System, Inc. (Yellow Freight), for operating motor vehicles (truck tractors) as common carriers without proper permit stamps 2 (permit or identification stamps) contrary to sec. 194.23(1), Stats. 3 The appellate court's reversal of the trial court's judgment forms the basis of this review.
Yellow Freight is a common carrier authorized by the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) to carry cartage interstate and has received authority from the Wisconsin Transportation Commission to operate its vehicles within the boundaries of this state. The defendant, Yellow Freight, registered part of its fleet of truck tractors for the 1978 calendar year in either Illinois or Missouri, pursuant to an international motor carrier's compact known as the International Registration Plan (IRP). Believing that its registration under the IRP satisfied the Wisconsin permit requirements set forth in ch. 194, Stats., Yellow Freight did not obtain Wisconsin permit stamps for its vehicles, but had, nevertheless, paid permit or identification stamp fees, in addition to registration fees, to both Illinois and Missouri and displayed permits stamps issued by those states on the Uniform Identification Cab Cards 4 assigned to these vehicles. During the period involved in this litigation, Yellow Freight received a number of citations for operating its truck tractors in this state without the proper vehicle identification stamp in violation of sec. 194.23(1). Prior to trial, the criminal charges against Yellow Freight were consolidated by agreement of the parties and recited that Yellow Freight failed to comply with the ch. 194 permit stamp requirement. 5
The International Registration Plan is a comprehensive reciprocal agreement entered into between numerous states and two Canadian provinces and is designed to facilitate the registration of motor vehicles operated in interstate commerce within those states and provinces. The IRP is briefly explained in its forward as follows:
Pursuant to the IRP agreement between Wisconsin, Illinois and Missouri, a common carrier who registers his vehicle in a member state fulfills the registration requirements of the member jurisdictions with the payment of one registration fee to the base jurisdiction which in turn apportions the registration fee to the member states. The apportioned registration fees, labelled "apportionable fees," 6 are calculated for payment to the participating states by a formula based on the mileage operated in the member states and each state's total annual registration fee for the common carrier's vehicle.
Wisconsin, Illinois and Missouri were members of the International Registration Plan during the year in question (1978). Wisconsin received apportioned registration fees for the vehicles registered in Illinois and Missouri, pursuant to the IRP and therefore Yellow Freight fulfilled Wisconsin's registration requirements for the truck tractors cited.
In the trial court, Yellow Freight moved to dismiss the state's prosecution charging them with failure to obtain Wisconsin permit stamps and failure to pay the permit fees as required in ch. 194, Stats., on the grounds that the permit fees were included in the registration fees apportioned to Wisconsin under the IRP. The state opposed this motion, arguing that Wisconsin's permit fee was not a part of nor included in the IRP's definition of "apportionable fees" and therefore Yellow Freight did not fulfill the Wisconsin permit fee requirement when it registered its vehicles in accordance with the IRP but failed to obtain the Wisconsin vehicle permit stamp.
As these facts were not in dispute, the circuit court viewed the dispositive question as one of law, namely, Was Wisconsin's permit fee included in the IRP's definition of "apportionable fees?" The trial court answered this query in the affirmative and dismissed the state's action. The state appealed to the court of appeals which reversed the trial court holding that the permit fees referred to in ch. 194, Stats., are not apportionable under the IRP. The appellate court reasoned that the IRP encompassed only the registration and licensing fees governed by ch. 341, Stats., and distinguished permit fees from licensing and registration fees on the grounds that permit fees do not serve the purposes of registration and licensing raising revenue and identification of vehicles to aid law enforcement), but rather, are applied to the cost of regulating the trucking industry and provide a means of identifying those vehicles authorized to operate within this state. State v. Yellow Freight System, Inc., 96 Wis.2d 484, 487-92, 292 N.W.2d 361 (Ct.App.1980).
The two issues presented for review are:
1. Does sec. 194.04(2), Stats., prohibit Wisconsin from requiring a permit of common carriers who have paid their Wisconsin registration fees in another state in accordance with the IRP, and thereby create an exemption to the payment for and receipt of a Wisconsin permit (identification stamp or permit stamp)?
2. Is the payment by Yellow Freight of an IRP registration fee in sister states (Illinois and Missouri) apportionable so as to allow them to operate as a common carrier in Wisconsin without securing the permit (permit stamp) required by ch. 194. Stats?
Initially, we note that before a common carrier is authorized to operate in this state in interstate commerce, he must fulfill the following three requirements: (1) obtain a certificate of authority to operate vehicles in this state, (secs. 194.23(1) and 194.04(1), Stats.); (2) register his vehicles in accordance with Wisconsin law, i. e., obtain license plates (ch. 341); and (3) obtain and display a Wisconsin permit stamp for each vehicle operated in this state (secs. 194.23(1) and 194.03(4)). The certificate of authority, the permit stamp and registration tag each require a separate fee payment by the common carrier to the state. See: sec. 194.04(1) (certificate), sec. 341.25 (registration) and sec. 194.04(1)(bd) and (cm) (permit stamp). Yellow Freight complied only with the first two requirements of certification and registration but failed to obtain a permit stamp; thus the sole controversy in this case is whether Yellow Freight is exempt from the permit stamp requirement or as Yellow Freight contends: Did it (Yellow Freight) fulfill the permit stamp requirements set forth in ch. 194, by registering the vehicles in question in Illinois and Missouri in accordance with the IRP?
Yellow Freight registered the cited vehicles in Illinois and Missouri and the apportioned Wisconsin registration fees were remitted to this state in accordance with the IRP and sec. 341.405(1), Stats. 7
The defendant, Yellow Freight, contends that sec. 194.04(2), Stats., which in part provides, "... No permit shall be issued or renewed for any motor vehicle unless the registration required by ch. 341 is paid in this state," eliminates the statutory requirement of obtaining a permit where the Wisconsin registration fees are paid in another state. Thus, Yellow Freight argues that payment of the IRP registration fee in another state (Illinois or Missouri) exempts it from paying the Wisconsin permit fee as set forth in ch. 194.
The court of appeals rejected Yellow Freight's interpretation of the phrase in sec. 194.04(2), Stats., that "No permit shall be issued ... for any motor vehicle unless the registration required by ch. 341 is paid in this state," (emphasis supplied) holding that this singular phrase of the statute must be read in conjunction with the exceptions to the ch. 341, registration requirement in order to arrive at the proper legislative intent. The court noted that a carrier who registers his vehicle in another state, pursuant to the IRP (sec. 341.405(1)), is exempt from only the registration requirement of ch. 341, 8 and not the permit fee requirement. The court, disagreeing with Yellow Freight's contention, further explained that the language of sec. 194.04(2), prohibiting the issuance of a permit until a separate registration fee is paid in Wisconsin was inapplicable to Yellow Freight because Yellow Freight, through its registration in Illinois and Missouri in accordance with the IRP, was not required to register in Wisconsin pursuant to ch. 341, Stats., and therefore was not included in the prohibition to the additional permit stamp requirements.
The appellate court, in rejecting Yellow Freight's interpretation of the disputed phrase in sec. 194.04(2), Stats., relied on an attorney general's opinion (1935). In this opinion the attorney general was presented with the question of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Lo
...unpublished order (Wis. S. Ct. April 29, 2002) (emphasis added). 17. Majority op., ¶ 15. 18. See, e.g., State v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 101 Wis. 2d 142, 153, 303 N.W.2d 834 (1981) ("[T[his court has often held that statutes should not be construed or interpreted to achieve absurd or unr......
-
Hailey Marie-Joe Force v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co.
...language of a statute should not be construed in a manner that leads to absurd or unreasonable results. State v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 101 Wis.2d 142, 153, 303 N.W.2d 834 (1981). We presume that “the legislature intends for a statute to be interpreted in a manner that advances the purp......
-
Home Builders of Mississippi v. City of Madison, Miss.
...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)). 14. Rule 16(a) of the Mississippi's Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that "[t]he Supreme Court shall have jurisdiction as is......
-
Baby Girl K., In Interest of, 82-087
...need resolution." Laufenberg v. Cosmetology Examining Bd., 87 Wis.2d 175, 187, 274 N.W.2d 618 (1979); State v. Yellow Freight System, Inc., 101 Wis.2d 142, 158, 303 N.W.2d 834 (1981). In this case, these requirements are met. Further, the court of appeals had the opportunity to examine this......