Carlson Transport, Inc. v. Illinois Commerce Commission
Docket: No. 79-468
Court: Appellate Court of Illinois; February 20, 1981; Illinois; State Appellate Court
The Illinois Commerce Commission is appealing a circuit court decision that reversed its order granting Edwin Meiers, operating as Graphic Arts Express, an extension of operating authority to transport foundry core materials. The court found that the Commission's order, particularly its finding (9), was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Meiers applied for the extension on April 26, 1974, which was opposed by Carlson Transport, A&B Freight Line, and Dixon Rapid Transport, all of whom operate as common carriers in Oregon, Illinois. The Commission's December 11, 1974 order, which allowed Meiers to transport specific materials under contracts with Acme Resin Company, was based on findings that existing carrier services were inadequate and that the extension would serve the public interest without diverting traffic from current carriers. Carlson Transport appealed the Commission's decision after a rehearing was denied. The trial court's July 9, 1979, order mandated the Commission to modify the permit by removing the authority to transport foundry core materials, citing that the Commission's findings were not supported by the evidence. The legal framework for reviewing the Commission's orders, as outlined in section 68 of the public utilities act, holds that the Commission’s findings are presumed true unless proven otherwise by the appealing party. The review focuses on the Commission's authority, support for its findings, and any constitutional rights potentially infringed.
The Commission is authorized to issue permits to qualified applicants if they demonstrate fitness, willingness, and ability to perform the proposed service while complying with relevant regulations. Additionally, the service must align with the public interest. The statute requires two findings: (1) the applicant's capability to perform the service, and (2) consistency with the public interest. The Commission contends its findings are supported by the record, while Carlson challenges the trial court's decision, asserting the Commission's findings regarding service adequacy and public interest are against the manifest weight of the evidence.
No Illinois court has defined "consistent with the public interest," but other states interpret it broadly, suggesting that permits are in the public interest if they do not harm the public or violate state policy. For permit transfers, a similar public interest showing is needed, but the burden is less than that for initial certificate issuance, which requires proof of "public convenience and necessity." The extension of contract carrier services is also subject to a lower burden of proof than initial certificates due to the more personalized relationship between shippers and contract carriers.
The Commission prioritizes shippers' preferences in carrier selection. Its determination of "public convenience and necessity" is discretionary and should not be overturned unless clearly unsupported by evidence. Carlson's arguments referencing the Interstate Commerce Commission and other Illinois cases are deemed irrelevant, as those pertain to more stringent standards for common carriers compared to the broader "consistent with the public interest" standard applicable here.
A common carrier certificate of 'public convenience and necessity' does not require a finding of inadequate service to grant specialized authority over irregular routes. The Commission's order, stating that issuing a permit is 'consistent with the public interest,' is evaluated against the evidence presented. Edwin Meiers, the applicant, confirmed his business operations in Oregon, with one trailer for hauling bagged sand foundry core for Acme Resin, and plans for additional equipment. Acme Resin's operations include a Chicago plant and a new Oregon plant, which will operate continuously and produce up to 10 million pounds of sand foundry core monthly, necessitating three to four loads daily within a 150-mile radius.
Due to foundries' low inventory practices, Acme Resin requires short-notice transportation, which Meiers, as a contract carrier, can provide more effectively than commercial carriers. While other carriers like Carlson and Dixon are utilized for bulk shipments and potential special rates, respectively, their existing capacity may not meet Acme Resin's urgent demands. Carlson has been reliable for years, but their equipment is often fully utilized. A&B Freight's limited operational days further constrain service options. The Commission's conclusion that Acme Resin needs a contract carrier aligns with the evidence, as common carrier services fail to meet their projected short-notice requirements. The Commission's finding that extending Meier’s authority won't displace other carriers is bolstered by the Oregon plant's goal to manage new business volumes.
Sufficient evidence supports the Commission’s order, and its findings align with the weight of the evidence. Carlson contends that finding (9) lacks specificity as it only includes ultimate facts. The Commission argues this point was waived since Carlson did not raise it in his rehearing petition; however, the issue is addressed on its merits. The findings must be specific enough to allow for intelligent review to ensure they justify the order. If not, the court will not independently investigate the record for supporting facts and may remand the case to the Commission.
Finding (9) states that existing common carrier service is inadequate, adopts testimony from the applicant and Acme Resin's traffic manager, and concludes that current carriers' traffic will not be diverted by the permit extension. These findings, rather than being mere conclusions, support the assertion that the permit extension aligns with the public interest. Carlson isolates one paragraph from the four-page order; however, when considered as a whole, finding (9) meets the specificity requirement. Unlike findings deemed inadequate in previous cases, the Commission's finding (9) clearly indicates the testimony and facts it relied upon for its public interest determination. Consequently, since finding (9) adequately supports the order and is not against the manifest weight of the evidence, the circuit court's judgment is reversed, and the Commission’s December 11, 1974 order is reinstated in full. Judges UNVERZAGT and LINDBERG concur.
