Matthews v. State, Ex Rel., (1933)
Court: Supreme Court of Florida
Number:
Visitors: 16
Judges: DAVIS, C. J. —
Attorneys: Waller Pepper and T. T. Turnbull, for Plaintiffs in Error;
Arthur G. Powell (Atlanta, Georgia) and W. J. Oven, for Defendant in Error.
Filed: Aug. 02, 1933
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Section 3 of Chapter 14764, Acts of 1931, provides that: "When any application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity has been heard by the Railroad Commission and denied, the Commission shall not entertain any further application covering the identical or similar routes, schedules and/or service until the expiration of six months from the date of such denial." Relying upon the above section of the statutes the defendant in error, St. Andrews Bay Transportation Company, obtained f
Summary: Section 3 of Chapter 14764, Acts of 1931, provides that: "When any application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity has been heard by the Railroad Commission and denied, the Commission shall not entertain any further application covering the identical or similar routes, schedules and/or service until the expiration of six months from the date of such denial." Relying upon the above section of the statutes the defendant in error, St. Andrews Bay Transportation Company, obtained fr..
More
I concur except as to the last paragraph of the above opinion. I am not clearly convinced that the Circuit Court is vested with power to issue writs of prohibition to the Railroad Commissioners. Such writs are issued by superior tribunals to inferior tribunals. In view of Section 35 of Art. V of the Constitution, it may be that, as to the judicial or quasi-judicial powers vested in the Railroad Commission the latter is not inferior to the Circuit Court, whose powers are vested by Section 11 of the same Article. Furthermore, I do not deem the decision of this question essential here. If it had to be decided, I am inclined to the view expressed by Chief Justice DAVIS, but I am not entirely free from doubt on that point. Otherwise, I concur fully.
Source: CourtListener
