1. Public convenience and necessity
2. Authority of commission
3. Burden of proof
1. Public convenience and necessity
A litigant may not request a certificate of public convenience and necessity and in the same action and at the same time challenge the constitutionality of sections 75-301 through 75-322. In determining public convenience and necessity, the deciding factors are (1) whether the operation will serve a useful purpose responsive to a public demand or need, (2) whether this purpose can or will be served as well by existing carriers, and (3) whether it can be served by the applicant in a specified manner without endangering or impairing the operations of existing carriers contrary to the public interest. An applicant who has been operating under color of authority need not make the same showing that an applicant who has never operated must make, and there is a presumption that the proposed service is or will be required by the present or future public convenience and necessity. When an applicant has been illegally conducting business for a sufficient period of time under a mistaken belief that its operations were legal, the color of right principles of law apply. However, if the applicant knew that its operations were illegal, then the color of right principles do not apply. In re Application of Nebraskaland Leasing & Assocs., 254 Neb. 583, 578 N.W.2d 28 (1998).
Public Service Commission's finding that applicant's continuing service after three warnings of illegal operation establishes applicant unfit to hold certificate of convenience and necessity was not arbitrary and capricious action. In re Application of A Touch of Class Limousine, 243 Neb. 33, 497 N.W.2d 71 (1993).
The existence of an adequate and satisfactory service by motor carriers already in the area is complete negation of public need and demand for added service by another carrier. In re Application of Kilthau, 236 Neb. 811, 464 N.W.2d 162 (1991).
To comply with this section, the applicant must prove, in part, that the applicant is fit financially. In re Application of Overland Armored Exp., 229 Neb. 524, 428 N.W.2d 166 (1988).
Public demand or need, which an applicant must prove to obtain a certificate from the Public Service Commission, is a present actual need or a need which will likely occur within the reasonably immediate or foreseeable future. In re Application of Renzenberger, Inc., 225 Neb. 30, 402 N.W.2d 294 (1987).
Public Service Commission's order granting certificate of public convenience and necessity was arbitrary and capricious; applicant had not met its burden of proof. In re Application of Red Carpet Limo. Serv., Inc., 221 Neb. 340, 377 N.W.2d 91 (1985).
In determining the issue of public convenience and necessity, controlling questions are whether the operation will serve a useful purpose responsive to a public demand or need; whether this purpose can or will be served as well by existing carriers; and whether it can be served by applicant in a specified manner without endangering or impairing the operations of existing carriers, contrary to public interest. In re Application of Nebraska Transport Co., Inc., 210 Neb. 269, 313 N.W.2d 686 (1981).
Under this section, a certificate shall be issued to any qualified applicant, authorizing the whole or any part of the operations covered by the application, if it is found after notice and hearing that the applicant is fit, willing, and able properly to perform the service proposed, and to conform to the rules and regulations of the Nebraska Public Service Commission and that the proposed service is or will be required by the present or future public convenience and necessity. Gentry Real Estate Co. v. King's Limousine Service, Inc., 201 Neb. 761, 272 N.W.2d 359 (1978).
Applicant for a certificate of public convenience and necessity who has been operating under color of authority enjoys a presumption that the proposed service applied for is or will be required by present or future public convenience and necessity. Dilts Trucking, Inc. v. Peake, Inc., 197 Neb. 459, 249 N.W.2d 732 (1977).
There must be finding that applicant is fit, willing, and able to perform the proposed service, and that the service offered is or will be required by public convenience and necessity in granting a certificate therefor. Robinson v. National Trailer Convoy, Inc., 188 Neb. 474, 197 N.W.2d 633 (1972).
Finding that proposed operation of a contract carrier will be consistent with public interest is necessary for issuance of permit. This means that the service must not conflict with the legislative policy of the state in dealing with transportation by motor vehicles. Wells Fargo Armored Service Corp. v. Bankers Dispatch Corp., 186 Neb. 261, 182 N.W.2d 648 (1971).
Conditions to be shown by applicant for contract carrier permit stated; consistent with the public interest distinguished from public convenience and necessity. Samardick of Grand Island-Hastings, Inc. v. B.D.C. Corp., 183 Neb. 229, 159 N.W.2d 310 (1968).
2. Authority of commission
The determination of what is consistent with public convenience and necessity is for the Public Service Commission and if there is evidence to sustain such determination the Supreme Court cannot intervene. Hopken v. Building Movers, Inc., 197 Neb. 195, 247 N.W.2d 633 (1976); Groenewold v. Building Movers, Inc., 197 Neb. 187, 247 N.W.2d 629 (1976).
Where there is evidence to sustain the factors for and against the issuance of a permit to a contract carrier, required to be considered by the Nebraska State Railway Commission, the determination of the public interest is for the commission and not the courts. Wells Fargo Armored Service Corp. v. Bankers Dispatch Corp., 188 Neb. 584, 198 N.W.2d 195 (1972).
Tacking is an extension of the authorized service under regulation of the Nebraska State Railway Commission, and the right to tack does not exist unless granted by the commission. Nebraska State Railway Commission v. Seward Motor Freight, Inc., 188 Neb. 223, 196 N.W.2d 200 (1972).
3. Burden of proof
Statement by Public Service Commission that it is inconsistent with the public interest to grant a contract carrier permit when existing common carriers can adequately serve the shipper improperly exhibited a preference for common carriers over contract carriage. Upon proof by an applicant for contract carrier authority that the proposed service is specialized and tailored to the customer's distinct needs, the burden shifts to protesting common carriers to show they can provide the same specialized service; thus the Public Service Commission erred in requiring an applicant for a contract carrier permit to establish the inability of existing common carriers to provide the same specialized service it proposed to provide. In re Application of Northland Transp., 239 Neb. 918, 479 N.W.2d 764 (1992).
The applicant has the burden to establish that its proposed service is specialized and fits the needs of the proposed contracting shipper or shippers; that it is fit, willing, and able to perform the service; and that the proposed operation will be consistent with the public interest. If the service proposed by the applicant can be performed as well by common carriers, the application should be denied because a need for a contract carrier has not been established. The Public Service Commission must weigh the special requirements of the shipper against the adequacy of the existing common carrier service. In re Application of Slack, 234 Neb. 704, 452 N.W.2d 538 (1990).
The burden is on the applicant to show that the extension of its present authority is required by the public convenience and necessity. Controlling questions in determining the issue of public convenience and necessity stated. In re Application of Petroleum Transport Service, Inc., 210 Neb. 411, 315 N.W.2d 245 (1982).
Burden is on the applicant for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to show he has met all the requirements of this section. In re Application of Greyhound Lines, Inc., 209 Neb. 430, 308 N.W.2d 336 (1981).
A certificate of public convenience and necessity may be issued only when required by the present or future public convenience and necessity and applicant has burden of proof. Ruan Transp. Corp. v. Herman Bros., Inc., 192 Neb. 343, 220 N.W.2d 245 (1974).
Burden rested upon applicant for change of route to show change was required by public convenience and necessity. Parsons v. Nebraska State Railway Commission, 181 Neb. 185, 147 N.W.2d 521 (1966).
Burden of proof is upon the applicant in order to obtain a certificate of public convenience and necessity. Simmerman v. National Trailer Convoy, Inc., 179 Neb. 400, 138 N.W.2d 481 (1965).