Judges: BUFORD, J.:
Attorneys: Reuben Ragland, for Petitioner Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, John M. Allison, for Petitioner Central Truck Lines, Inc., Oven Oven for Petitioner Seaboard Air Line Railway Co.
Theo. T. Turnbull, for Respondent Railroad Commission of the State of Florida, and Adair, Kent, Ashby McNatt, for Respondent Flamingo Truck Lines, Inc.
Filed: Jan. 09, 1942
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 247 On petition for certiorari we are asked to review order of the Railroad Commission known as Order No. 1478, docket No. 737. The order of the Railroad Commission is as follows: "2. Flamingo Truck Lines, Inc., as result of a certain merger agreement filed with the Secretary of State of the State of Florida under the laws of the State of Florida, and approve
Summary: [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 247 On petition for certiorari we are asked to review order of the Railroad Commission known as Order No. 1478, docket No. 737. The order of the Railroad Commission is as follows: "2. Flamingo Truck Lines, Inc., as result of a certain merger agreement filed with the Secretary of State of the State of Florida under the laws of the State of Florida, and approved..
More
I dissent upon the authority of Seaboard Airline R. Co. v. Wells, et al., 100 Fla. 1027, 130 So. 587; Central Truck Lines v. Railroad Commission, 118 Fla. 555, 160 So. 26; Union Bus Co. v. Douglass, et al., 123 Fla. 292, 166 So. 582. I think that if the majority of the Railroad Commissioners had applied the principles laid down in the above cases they would have reached a different conclusion. The Commission must have realized that they were departing from these older cases, when they stated in the majority opinion that:
"Orders and decisions denying motor carrier applications made ten years ago or more and bottomed on adequacy of existing modes of transportation cannot stand the test of present day advancement and progress in the motor carrier industry." The truth is, as I see it, that the principles laid down in those cases are as sound and practical today as they were when they were written. For under these principles the motor carrier industry has prospered and progressed. The majority opinion of the Commission naively admits this, when in the very next sentence it observes: "The carrier by motor vehicle has now taken its place in the Sun, and plays a very important part, not only in the State, but in the National transportation system." Furthermore, it appears that the Commission has entirely overlooked the prohibition, in Section 3 of Chapter 14,764 against granting probably destructive competition to invade a territory already served by an existing carrier except where the existing carrier first fails to furnish the service and facilities which may reasonably be required by the Commission.
For these reasons I dissent.