Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Metropolitan Lines, Inc. v. Brooks

Supreme Court of Arizona

July 10, 1950

METROPOLITAN LINES, Inc.,
v.
BROOKS et al

Order declared void.

Jennings, Strouss, Salmon & Trask, and J. A. Riggins, Jr., of Phoenix, for petitioner.

Fred O. Wilson, Attorney General, Calvin H. Udall, Assistant Attorney General, for Corporation Commission.

Langmade & Sullivan, of Phoenix, for Sun Valley Bus Lines, Inc., an interested party.

Udall, Justice. La Prade, C. J., and Stanford, Phelps and De Concini, JJ., concur.

OPINION

Udall, Justice.

Page 481

[70 Ariz. 345] The petitioner, Metropolitan Lines, Inc., a corporation instituted this original proceeding in certiorari against the Arizona Corporation Commission, and the individual members thereof, for the purpose of testing the legality of an order, entered by the commission upon its own motion on June 6, 1950, directing Sun Valley Bus Lines, Inc. (hereinafter termed Sun Valley), to commence rendering local passenger service, as a common carrier under certificate No. 5234, to all intermediate points between Phoenix-Florence or Phoenix-Superior, save and except through passenger service between the designated termini.

This is a companion case to an original prohibition proceeding entitled Pacific Greyhound Lines v. Brooks, Ariz., 220 P.2d 477. Both cases stem from the main case entitled Pacific Greyhound Lines v. Sun Valley Bus Lines, 70 Ariz. 65, 216 P.2d 404.

Metropolitan, as petitioner, asserts that it has certain operative rights as a common carrier in Maricopa County, particularly as to its service between Phoenix and Mesa and intermediate points, that will be invaded by Sun Valley if it complies with the Commission's order. It further maintains that the Commission in entering the order in question acted in excess of its jurisdiction and that the order is therefore null and void.

At the outset we are met with a motion to quash filed by the Attorney General in behalf of the Commission. Two points are urged -- (1) that the remedy of appeal from this order exists in favor of petitioner; and (2) that petitioner has a plain, speedy and adequate remedy at law to obtain the relief sought. As this court stated in Hunt v. Norton, 68 Ariz. 1, 198 P.2d 124, [70 Ariz. 346] 126, 5 A.L.R.2d 668: "Certiorari may be granted only when two facts appear: (a) the jurisdiction of the inferior tribunal must have been exceeded, and (b) there is neither an appeal nor a plain, speedy and adequate remedy. Sec. 28-101, A.C.A.1939. * * *" See also Commercial Life Ins. Co. v. Wright, 64 Ariz. 129, 166 P.2d 943.

There is no merit to the Commission's contention that the proceedings outlined under Sec. 69-249, A.C.A.1939, constitutes an appeal. This Court directly passed upon this precise point in the case of Corporation Commission of Arizona v. People's Freight Line, Inc., 41 Ariz. 158, 16 P.2d 420, 421, wherein we said: "It will be seen, upon examining the language of this section, that the proceeding is not an appeal from the decision of the commission, but it is a new and independent action. The case is heard de novo upon such evidence as may be proper, and not merely upon a review of the evidence taken before the commission. * * *" (Emphasis Supplied.) For an analogous ruling under a similar provision in the Workmen's Compensation Act, see O'Neill v. Martori, 69 Ariz. 270, 212 P.2d 994.

Assuming the right of petitioner to challenge the validity of the order by a direct proceeding in the superior court, as provided for under Sec. 69-249, supra, with its resulting trial de novo and an ultimate right of appeal from the judgment there entered, does this circuitous route, under the peculiar circumstances of this case, afford a plain, speed and adequate remedy to correct the evils flowing from the order now under review? It is our considered judgment that it does not. Such procedure, as we view it, would be ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.