B & D Delivery, Inc. v. Public Utilities Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

B & D Delivery, Inc. v. Public Utilities Commission

322 N.E.2d 633, 41 Ohio St. 2d 39, 70 Ohio Op. 2d 122, 1975 Ohio LEXIS 417

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 29, 1975

DocketNo. 74-517

StatusPublished

This text of 322 N.E.2d 633 (B & D Delivery, Inc. v. Public Utilities Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

B & D Delivery, Inc. v. Public Utilities Commission, 322 N.E.2d 633, 41 Ohio St. 2d 39, 70 Ohio Op. 2d 122, 1975 Ohio LEXIS 417 (Ohio 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The crux of appellant’s arguments is that the denial of appellant’s application after competitor objection was an abuse of discretion because appellant did [40]*40show deficiencies in existing service, and that appellant was a “proper person” for the certificate it seeks.

In Jones v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1943), 141 Ohio St. 237, this court held that “it is incumbent upon a contract motor carrier who seeks permission to add a shipper to his list, to show a deficiency in the service of a subsisting and protesting common carrier.” Further, the court held, the “mere proof of an agreement between a contract motor carrier and a shipper for the carriage of materials does not afford a sufficient basis for the granting * * * of a permit for such carriage over the protest of an existing common carrier who is ready and prepared to meet adequately and satisfactorily the needs of the shipper.”

Here, the commission concluded that there was “no demonstrated deficiency in the service of the subsisting and protesting common carriers.” In Wooster Freight Lines v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1955), 163 Ohio St. 11, this court said that, in an appeal from the Public Utilities Commission, the Supreme Court will not “substitute its judgment for that of the commission on questions of fact and will not disturb a finding and order of the commission unless it appears from the record that such finding and order are manifestly against the weight of the evidence.”

In D. G. & U. Truck Lines v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1965), 4 Ohio St. 2d 113, a case in which the commission granted a certificate of public convenience and necessity to a common carrier, this court said that the commission “may exercise reasonable discretion in order to determine whether an applicant is a proper party to receive such a certificate.”

Here, the commission specifically found that appellant “has been rendering service to the two supporting shippers in intrastate commerce for approximately six years without authority * * * in contravention of the laws. ”

Accordingly, we find that the order of the Public Utilities Commission is neither unreasonable nor unlawful, and it is, therefore, affirmed.

Order affirmed.

O’Neill, C. J., Herbert, CorrigaN, SterN, Celebrezze, W. BrowN and P. BrowN, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

The crux of appellant’s arguments is that the denial of appellant’s application after competitor objection was an abuse of discretion because appellant did [40]*40show deficiencies in existing service, and that appellant was a “proper person” for the certificate it seeks.

In Jones v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1943), 141 Ohio St. 237, this court held that “it is incumbent upon a contract motor carrier who seeks permission to add a shipper to his list, to show a deficiency in the service of a subsisting and protesting common carrier.” Further, the court held, the “mere proof of an agreement between a contract motor carrier and a shipper for the carriage of materials does not afford a sufficient basis for the granting * * * of a permit for such carriage over the protest of an existing common carrier who is ready and prepared to meet adequately and satisfactorily the needs of the shipper.”

Here, the commission concluded that there was “no demonstrated deficiency in the service of the subsisting and protesting common carriers.” In Wooster Freight Lines v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1955), 163 Ohio St. 11, this court said that, in an appeal from the Public Utilities Commission, the Supreme Court will not “substitute its judgment for that of the commission on questions of fact and will not disturb a finding and order of the commission unless it appears from the record that such finding and order are manifestly against the weight of the evidence.”

In D. G. & U. Truck Lines v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1965), 4 Ohio St. 2d 113, a case in which the commission granted a certificate of public convenience and necessity to a common carrier, this court said that the commission “may exercise reasonable discretion in order to determine whether an applicant is a proper party to receive such a certificate.”

Here, the commission specifically found that appellant “has been rendering service to the two supporting shippers in intrastate commerce for approximately six years without authority * * * in contravention of the laws. ”

Accordingly, we find that the order of the Public Utilities Commission is neither unreasonable nor unlawful, and it is, therefore, affirmed.

Order affirmed.

O’Neill, C. J., Herbert, CorrigaN, SterN, Celebrezze, W. BrowN and P. BrowN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

322 N.E.2d 633, 41 Ohio St. 2d 39, 70 Ohio Op. 2d 122, 1975 Ohio LEXIS 417, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/b-d-delivery-inc-v-public-utilities-commission-ohio-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack