DocketNumber: Nos. 9716, 9717
Citation Numbers: 14 Utah 2d 261, 382 P.2d 210, 1963 Utah LEXIS 196
Judges: Callister, Crockett, Henriod, McDonough, Wade
Filed Date: 5/29/1963
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/15/2024
These proceedings are companion to Ashworth Transfer, Inc. et al. v. Barton et
The plaintiffs are not in an advantaged position to contend that public convenience and necessity do not require the service which they sought to render; and, for which incidentally, the record amply justifies the Commission’s finding of need. As to whom the authority should be granted, it was the Commission’s prerogative to decide, so long as the carrier met the required qualifications. See Sec. 54-6-5, U.S.C.1953.
Com plaint is made of the facts that the Commission denied motions to consolidate the hearings; and that after they were held it did consolidate them for the purpose of considering the entire problem and making its decision. It is to be observed that all interested parties actually participated in each of the hearings. The Commission appears to have been careful and even indulgent in allowing participation by the interested parties, the cross-examination of witnesses by their counsel, and the presentation of their own evidence at the proper time. From our survey of the situation we are not persuaded that the Commission exceeded the broad latitude of discretion it has as to its own proceedings. See Lake Shore Motor Coach Lines, Inc. v. Welling, 9 Utah 2d 114, 339 P.2d 1011.
On the basis of the rule of review stated in the case of Ashworth Transfer et al. v. Barton, referred to above, the orders are affirmed. Costs to defendant Barton Truck Lines.