Surf Coast Tours, Inc. v. Florida Public Service Commission
| Citation | 385 So.2d 1353 |
| Decision Date | 26 June 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 55807,55807 |
| Parties | SURF COAST TOURS, INC., Petitioner, v. FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION and Florida Limousine Service, Inc., Respondents. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
E. William Crotty and B. Paul Katz of Black, Crotty, Sims & Hubka, Daytona Beach, for petitioner.
Prentice P. Pruitt and M. Robert Christ, Tallahassee, for Florida Public Service Commission.
Gregory A. Presnell and Robert B. Nadeau, Jr. of Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, Orlando, for Florida Limousine Service, Inc.
By petition for writ of certiorari, petitioner seeks review of Florida Public Service Commission Order No. 14805. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution (1972), and for the following reasons we approve the order of the Commission.
By Order No. 13984-A, issued January 11, 1978, the Florida Public Service Commission granted the transfer of a portion of Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity No. 728 from Turfway Lines, Inc. to Surf Coast Tours, Inc. Accordingly, Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity No. 1313 was issued to petitioner on January 23, 1978. On January 18, 1978, Florida Limousine Service, Inc. filed with the Commission an application for expansion of rights under an existing certificate, including special operations authority from points in Volusia County east of I-95. Petitioner Surf Coast Tours, Inc. and several other carriers filed protests to the application. After public hearings, the Commission on November 30, 1978, accepted for the most part the hearing examiner's recommendations and granted the application. 1 It is from this order that petitioner seeks review.
In determining whether a certificate of public convenience and necessity shall be granted, section 323.03(4), Florida Statutes (1977), directs the Florida Public Service Commission to specifically consider, among other things, the following elements:
(a) Whether existing transportation service of all kinds is adequate to meet the reasonable public needs.
(b) The present necessity for the certificate in relation to the volume of existing or projected future traffic over such route or in such territory.
(c) The financial ability of the applicant to furnish adequate, continuous, and uninterrupted service at the times required therefor, and to meet the financial obligations of the service which the carrier proposes to perform.
(d) The effect on existing transportation facilities and service of all kinds, and particularly whether the granting of such certificate will or may seriously impair essential public service as provided by existing motor carriers.
(e) The fitness of the applicant properly to perform the proposed service and to conform to provisions of this part and the rules of the commission.
(f) The feasibility of the transportation proposed.
Petitioner takes exception with the Commission's findings in this case that (1) the existing transportation service is inadequate to meet the reasonable public needs; (2) Florida Limousine possesses the requisite financial ability to furnish adequate, continuous and uninterrupted service at the times required; and (3) the granting of the certificate will not seriously impair essential public service as provided by existing motor carriers.
We reiterate at the outset that the scope of this Court's certiorari review of orders of the Florida Public Service Commission is narrow. Our task is to determine whether the Commission's action comports with the essential requirements of law and is supported by competent substantial evidence. Florida Telephone Corp. v. Mayo, 350 So.2d 775 (Fla.1977). Orders of the Commission come to this Court with a presumption of correctness, and it is petitioner's burden to prove error. Gulf Oil Co. v. Bevis, 322 So.2d 30 (Fla.1975); Fargo Van & Storage, Inc. v. Bevis, 314 So.2d 129 (Fla.1975); Florida East Coast Ry. v. King, 158 So.2d 523 (Fla.1963).
The record in this cause is woefully sparse and incomplete. Petitioner is unable to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
AT & T Communications of the Southern States v. Marks, 69732
...competent evidence in the record to support the PSC's findings, which we therefore may not disturb. Surf Coast Tours, Inc. v. Florida Public Service Commission, 385 So.2d 1353 (Fla.1980); Kimball v. Hawkins, 364 So.2d 463 Accordingly, Order No. 16804 of the Public Service Commission is here......
-
Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. Florida Public Service Com'n, 62077
... ... FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION and Florida Power and Light Company, Appellees ... No. 62077 ... Supreme ... Surf Coast Tours, Inc ... v. Florida Public Service Commission, 385 So.2d ... ...
-
Gulf Power Co. v. Florida Public Service Com'n
...it violates the essential requirements of law. City of Tallahassee v. Mann, 411 So.2d 162 (Fla.1981); Surf Coast Tours, Inc. v. Florida Public Service Commission, 385 So.2d 1353 (Fla.1980). Accordingly, we approve the PSC's order no. 11498 in all It is so ordered. BOYD, C.J., and ALDERMAN, ......
-
Florida Power Corp. v. Cresse, 60604
...evidence for that conclusion and so we will not interfere with that aspect of the PSC's decision. Surf Coast Tours, Inc. v. Florida Public Service Commission, 385 So.2d 1353 (Fla.1980); Florida Telephone Corp. v. Mayo, 350 So.2d 775 As its second point on appeal, FPC asserts that the failur......