Re Tri-City Motor Transp. Co.

10 Citing cases

  1. In re Northern Pacific Railway Co.

    74 N.D. 416 (N.D. 1946)   Cited 11 times

    In case it appears from the evidence that the service furnished or that could be furnished by existing transportation facilities is reasonably adequate, the commission shall not grant such certificate. Tri-City Motor Transp. Co. v. Great Northern R. Co. 67 N.D. 119, 270 N.W. 100. The convenience and necessity which the law requires to support an order for the establishment or extension of motor vehicles transportation service is the convenience and necessity of the public as distinguished from that of an individual or any number of individuals.

  2. Re Hvidsten

    48 N.W.2d 26 (N.D. 1951)   Cited 4 times

    The public are to be given the primary consideration in any public convenience case. Tri-City Transportation Company, In re, 67 N.D. 119, 270 N.W. 100. The granting or denying of a certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity is primarily a legislative question.

  3. Re Hvidsten

    76 N.D. 111 (N.D. 1948)   Cited 11 times
    In Hvidsten v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 76 N.D. 111, 33 N.W.2d 615 (1948), the court found there had been insufficient compliance with a North Dakota statute requiring administrative agencies to "`make and state concisely and explicitly its findings of fact. * * *.'"

    This being so, it must follow that public convenience and necessity do not require additional transportation service to a territory that already has reasonably adequate service or where the proposed service will create ruinous competition or materially impair existing service to any part of the territory. Tri-City Motor Transportation Co. v. Great Northern R. Co. 67 N.D. 119, 270 N.W. 100; Theel v. Great Northern R. Co. 72 N.D. 280, 6 N.W.2d 560. BURKE, J.

  4. In re Hanson

    74 N.D. 224 (N.D. 1945)   Cited 7 times

    The commission is required to take into consideration the existing travel upon the highways, the increased cost, if any, in maintaining the highway; the convenience and necessity of the public as distinguished from that of an individual. Tri-City Motor Transp. Co. v. Great Northern R. Co. 67 N.D. 119, 270 N.W. 100. If public convenience and necessity be shown the commission must consider also whether the facilities already existing or which could be furnished by the railroad are reasonably adequate for the needs and the demands of the territory. Theel v. Great Northern R. Co. 72 N.D. 280, 6 N.W.2d 560.

  5. D. R.G.W.R. CO. ET AL. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM. ET AL

    98 Utah 431 (Utah 1940)   Cited 15 times

    The Legislature had in mind the second meaning when it used the word "trial de novo" here. For cases discussing similar principles we invite attention to the following: Tri-City Motor Transp. Co. v. Great Northern Ry. Co. et al., 67 N.D. 119, 270 N.W. 100; and Russell v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 68 N.D. 447, 281 N.W. 239. Those cases holding a contrary view seem to be based upon a differently worded statute: Texport Carrier Corporation v. Smith et al., U.S.D.C. Texas, 8 F. Supp. 28; and Railroad Commission of Texas et al. v. Rau, Tex. Civ. App. 45 S.W.2d 413.

  6. Application of Zimbelman

    356 N.W.2d 99 (N.D. 1984)   Cited 7 times

    1933 N.D.Sess.Laws Ch. 164, § 8. At that time, the Act was administered by the Board of Railroad Commissioners. 1933 Sess.Laws Ch. 164, § 1. Early cases construing the common carrier regulatory statutes were concerned primarily with the effect upon the railroads of competition from motor carriers. See, e.g., Application of Hvidsten, 78 N.D. 56, 48 N.W.2d 26 (1951); Hvidsten v. Northern Pacific Railway Co., 76 N.D. 111, 33 N.W.2d 615 (1948); Application of Midwest Motor Express, Inc., 74 N.D. 416, 23 N.W.2d 49 (1946); Application of Theel Bros. Rapid Transit Co., 72 N.D. 280, 6 N.W.2d 560 (1942); Tri-City Motor Transp. Co. v. Great Northern Railway Co., 67 N.D. 119, 270 N.W. 100 (1936). We are informed by counsel that for all practical purposes this competition between the railroads and motor carriers no longer exists.

  7. Tri-County Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Elkin

    224 N.W.2d 785 (N.D. 1974)   Cited 13 times

    It is the public convenience and necessity, after all, with which the Commission is concerned, not private preference. See Tri-City Motor Transportation Co. v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 67 N.D. 119, 270 N.W. 100 (1936), quoting 42 C.J. Motor Vehicles, Section 121, page 687, as follows: "The convenience and necessity which the law requires to support the public service commission's order for the establishment or extension of . . . service is the convenience and necessity of the public as distinguished from that of an individual or any number of individuals, and this is the primary matter to be considered in determining what constitutes such public convenience and necessity in a particular case, and the propriety of granting a certificate to that effect."

  8. In re Theel Brpthers Rapid Transit Co.

    72 N.D. 280 (N.D. 1942)   Cited 18 times

    "This provision is a restriction upon the power of the commission in the granting of certificates of public convenience and necessity to motor trucks as common carriers of property." Tri-City Motor Transp. Co. v. Great Northern R. Co. 67 N.D. 119, 270 N.W. 100. Among the purposes for which the utilities act was conceived was to prevent unfair and destructive competition, and the public service commission is the agency of the state vested with power to regulate and adjust such contingencies when they arise.

  9. Northern States Power Co. v. Board of R.R. Comr's

    71 N.D. 1 (N.D. 1941)   Cited 17 times

    The jurisdiction of the courts on an appeal from an order of the Public Service Commission is limited. Tri-City Motor Transp. Co. v. Great Northern R. Co. 67 N.D. 119, 270 N.W. 100; East Ohio Gas Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 12 N.E.2d 765, 22 PUR(NS) 489. The court has no power to interfere with the legislative function of the Commission in setting rates.

  10. Re Russell

    281 N.W. 239 (N.D. 1938)   Cited 4 times

    Trial was had in this Court upon that whole record. . . . "Since the hearing in this matter before the Railroad Commissioners the Supreme Court of our State has made its decision in the case of Tri-City Motor Transp. Co. v. Great N.R.R. Co. 67 N.D. 119, 270 N.W. 100. That is a case very much similar to the one at bar, and there the Supreme Court lays down certain rules governing the actions of the Railroad Commission in granting licenses of this kind, as well as the procedure on appeal. . . . "In that case the Court lays down the rule that the first question for the Court to consider on appeal in this kind of a procedure is `Is the decision or final order lawful?