Territory ex rel. Public Utilities Commission v. Fung

3 Citing cases

  1. Captain Andy's Sailing v. DLNR

    113 Haw. 184 (Haw. 2006)   Cited 33 times

    ]" Id. (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). In Territory v. Fung, 34 Haw. 52 (1936), the Territorial Court addressed the question of whether a certificate of "public convenience and necessity" for a common carrier of passengers on public highways (namely, the Checker Cab Co. of Hawai'i) was a government franchise (i.e., a contract) or a mere revocable license. See Territory v. Fung, 34 Haw. at 53-54.

  2. Morita et Als. v. Pub. Ut. Com

    40 Haw. 579 (Haw. 1954)   Cited 2 times
    In Morita v. Public Utilities Commission, 40 Haw. 579 (1954), we held that the ownership of the special franchise to operate a street railway system does not prohibit the corporation from engaging in other corporate business or owning other franchises. The court stated, "[t]here is no rule of law that such a grantee, whether an individual, a corporation or a partnership, is thereby prohibited from all activities other than those authorized by the special franchise. It is common, if not customary, for public utilities to engage in businesses other than that authorized by the franchise."

    A certificate of public convenience and necessity is a different authorization from that of a franchise involving different rights and duties. ( Territory v. Fung, 34 Haw. 52, pp. 61-64.) The Territory v. Fung case points out that a franchise and a governmental license differ widely in origin and in legal characteristics; among other characteristics, a franchise is a property right and subject to alienation while a governmental license is considered as a mere privilege, is revocable and temporary, conferring no vested rights of property, and is personal to the licensee.

  3. Auto Rental Co. v. Lee

    35 Haw. 77 (Haw. 1939)   Cited 6 times
    In Auto Rental, the supreme court upheld an injunction against violation of this jurisdiction's Fair Trade Act without stating that the violation was a nuisance.

    ( Triner Corporation v. McNeil, 363 Ill. 559, 2 N.E. [2d] 929.) This court has repeatedly held that laws passed by the legislature in the exercise of its police powers were "rightful subjects of legislation" within the meaning of that term as employed in section 55 of the Organic Act. ( Territory v. Fung, 34 Haw. 52; Campsie v. Catton, Neill Co., 26 Haw. 737, 740; Ter. v. McCandless, 24 Haw. 485, 490, 491; In re Kalana, 22 Haw. 96, 103; Territory v. Makaiwi, 21 Haw. 631, 633; In Re Craig, 20 Haw. 483, 490.) Moreover, no inconsistency exists between the provisions of sections 7459-A and 7459-F and the provisions of the Sherman Antitrust Act, as amended.