STATE EX REL SAMMONS TRUCKING v BO

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 13216 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A F F OTN 1975 THE STATE O MONTANA, ex rel. F S M O S TRUCKING I N C . , a Montana A MN corporation, e t a l . , -vs Relators, - GORDON BOLLINGER, T O A G. MONAHAN, HMS P.J. GILFEATHER, JAMES R , SHEA and GEORGE TURMAN, a s members o f and comprising t h e PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, e t a l . , Respondents. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING : Counsel o f Record : For R e l a t o r s : S c r i b n e r and Huss, Helena, Montana Lawrence D, Huss argued, Helena, Montana For Respondents: C h a r l e s Dickman and R u s s e l l Doty, Helena, Montana C h a r l e s Dickman argued, Helena, Montana Submitted: December 3 , 1975 Decided : J f l N 1 " 4: '?i ; F i l e d :! . J M ; ~ ;?'j'E 2 6 1975 M r . J u s t i c e Gene R. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court: This i s an o r i g i n a l proceeding brought by r e l a t o r s a s common c a r r i e r s o p e r a t i n g motor v e h i c l e s engaged i n i n t e r s t a t e commerce and u s i n g Montana highways. R e l a t o r s seek a d e c l a r a t o r y judgment and w r i t of mandate adjudging i n v a l i d t h e s t a t e r e g i s t r a t i o n f e e imposed by t h e Public Service Commission upon such v e h i c l e s t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t such f e e imposes a g r e a t e r and c o n f l i c t i n g requirement than t h a t imposed by f e d e r a l laws and r e g u l a t i o n s . Upon h e a r i n g c o u n s e l f o r r e l a t o r s e x p a r t e t h i s Court d e s i r e d an a d v e r s a r y h e a r i n g . Such h e a r i n g was had on December 3 , 1975. Under T i t l e 8 , Chapter 1, Revised Codes of Montana, 1947, and 49 U.S.C. 8302, t h e Public S e r v i c e Commission has s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i t y t o r e g u l a t e a l l " f o r h i r e " motor v e h i c l e s o p e r a t i n g on t h e p u b l i c highways of t h e s t a t e of Montana. R.C.M. S e c t i o n 8-116(a), 1947, provides f o r an assessment of an annual f i v e d o l l a r f e e on each commercial motor v e h i c l e which s e r v e s t o r e g i s t e r and i d e n t i f y such v e h i c l e . Pursuant t o t h i s a u t h o r i t y t h e Public S e r v i c e Commission, i n November 1975, s e n t a memo t o a l l i n t e r s t a t e motor c a r r i e r s o p e r a t i n g on Montana highways. The memo s t a t e d t h a t due t o l e g i s l a t i v e changes i n s e c t i o n 8-101, R.C.M. 1947, d e f i n i n g motor v e h i c l e s , t h a t term now included n o t only t h e motor c a r r i e r b u t a l s o any t r a i l e r , s e m i t r a i l e r o r d o l l i e a t t a c h e d t h e r e t o and pursuant t o s e c t i o n 8-116(a) each such vehic.Cr9dri- u n i t i s s u b j e c t t o t h e f i v e d o l l a r registration fee. It i s upon t h e b a s i s of t h i s memo t h a t r e l a t o r s seek a d e c l a r a t o r y judgment and w r i t of mandate. With t h e s e f a c t s i n mind, t h e i s s u e f o r t h i s C o u r t ' s cons i d e r a t i o n i s whether such a f e e imposition i s c o n t r a r y t o f e d e r a l laws and r e g u l a t i o n s and t h u s nonenforceable t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t i t c r e a t e s an undue burden on i n t e r s t a t e commerce. I n S t a t e ex r e l . Sammons Trucking, I n c . v. Boedecker, 158 >font. 397, 492 P.2d 919 (1972), t h i s Court r u l e d t h a t a t e n d o l l a r f e e imposed on motor v e h i c l e s engaged i n i n t e r s t a t e commerce pursuant t o s e c t i o n 8-116, R.C.M. 1947, was a burden on i n t e r s t a t e commerce and t h e r e f o r e could n o t s t a n d . Subse- q u e n t l y t h e l e g i s l a t u r e i n 1973 amended s e c t i o n 8-116 t o b r i n g i t i n t o compliance w i t h 49 U.S.C. $302 and 49 C.F.R. 1023.33 which r e q u i r e only a f i v e d o l l a r f e e p e r i n t e r s t a t e motor v e h i c l e . However a t t h e same time, t h e l e g i s l a t u r e a l s o amended s e c t i o n 8 - 1 0 1 ( f ) , R.C.M. 1947, a s t o t h e d e f i n i t i o n of a motor v e h i c l e . P r i o r t o amendment t h e d e f i n i t i o n of a motor v e h i c l e a s s e t f o r t h i n section 8-101(f), read: he term 'motor v e h i c l e ' s h a l l i n c l u d e a l l v e h i c l e s o r machines p r o p e l l e d by any power o t h e r than muscular used upon t h e p u b l i c highways f o r t h e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n of persons and/or p r o p e r t y . II Subsequent t o amendment, t h e d e f i n i t i o n of a motor v e h i c l e a s s e t f o r t h i n s e c t i o n 8-101(6), r e a d s : " ' ~ o t o rv e h i c l e ' i n c l u d e s v e h i c l e s o r machines, motor t r u c k s , t r a c t o r s o r o t h e r s e l f - p r o p e l l e d v e h i c l e s used f o r t h e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n of p r o p e r t y o r persons over t h e p u b l i c highways of t h e s t a t e , and any t r a i l e r , s e m i t r a i l e r , d o l l i e o r o t h e r v e h i c l e drawn t h e r e b y . " (Emphasis supplied. ) - The e f f e c t then of t h i s s t a t e ' s d e f i n i t i o n of a motor v e h i c l e a s amended i s t o r e q u i r e a f i v e d o l l a r r e g i s t r a t i o n f e e , under s e c t i o n 8-116(a), on each u n i t of an i n t e r s t a t e transport. That t h i s c o n f l i c t s w i t h f e d e r a l law i s a p p a r e n t upon examination of I n t e r s t a t e Commerce Commission (I.C.C.) r e g u l a t i o n s promulgated pursuant t o 49 U.S.C. §302(a). 49 C.F.R. 1023.l(h) d e f i n e s a motor v e h i c l e t o b e : "* * * a s e l f - p r o p e l l e d o r motor-driven v e h i c l e operated by a motor c a r r i e r under a u t h o r i t y i s s u e d by t h e I n t e r s t a t e Commerce Commission. 1 1 Nowhere i n t h e I . C . C . definition i s any mention made o f d o l l i e s , t r a i l e r s , o r s e m i t r a i l e r s a s being motor v e h i c l e s . the I.C.C. ath her, d e f i n i t i o n i s s i m i l a r t o t h e o l d Montana d e f i n i t i o n i n t h a t i t a p p l i e s only t o t h e v e h i c l e c o n t a i n i n g t h e mechanical d r i v e u n i t , n o t t o whatever i s being p u l l e d by t h a t power u n i t . In addition, t h e I.C.C. r e g u l a t i o n s provide a t 49 C.F.R. 1023.33, t h a t where any s t a t e p r e s c r i b e s r e g i s t r a t i o n o r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n stamp f e e s f o r such motor v e h i c l e s : "* * * such f e e s h a l l n o t exceed $5." I n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h t h i s f i v e d o l l a r maximum f e e , f e d e r a l s t a t u t o r y law s t a t e s t h a t any s t a t e motor v e h i c l e f e e g r e a t e r than t h a t allowed by I . C . C . burden on i n t e r s t a t e commerce. r e g u l a t i o n c o n s t i t u t e s an undue 5 3 0 2 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( d ) . There- 49 U.S.C. f o r e t h e e f f e c t of t h e s t a t e l e g i s l a t i o n , i f enforced by t h e Public S e r v i c e Commission, would be t o impose a f i v e d o l l a r f e e n o t only f o r t h e motor u n i t b u t a l s o each u n i t towed thereby. impose f e e s s u b s t a n t i a l l y i n excess of what I . C . C . T h i s would regulations provide w i t h t h e r e s u l t i n g undue burden on i n t e r s t a t e commerce. There can be no doubt t h a t w k r e a s t a t e s t a t u t e conf l i c t s w i t h f e d e r a l l e g i s l a t i o n i n t h e same s u b j e c t a r e a and t h e f e d e r a l l e g i s l a t i o n i s w i t h i n t h e competency of Congress t o e n a c t , the federal legislation is controlling. I n t e r s t a t e Commerce Commission v. D e t r o i t , G.H. & M.R.Company, 986, 42 L.Ed. 306; C i n c i n n a t i , Commerce Commission, 162 U.S. United A . A . S.Ct. & A.1.W. 794, 100 L.Ed. 167 U.S.633, N.O. & T.P.R.Co. 184, 16 S . C t . v. I n t e r s t a t e 700, 40 L.Ed. v. Wisconsin Emp.Rel.Bd., 1162. 17 S.Ct. 351 U.S. 935; 266, 76 I n t h e s p e c i f i c a r e a of i n t e r s t a t e commerce t h i s Court i n S t a t e ex r e l . Sammons Trucking I n c . v. Boedecker, 158 Mont. 397, 399, 400, 492 P.2d 919 (1972), s t a t e d : " e hold t h e f e d e r a l s t a t u t e and r e g u l a t i o n s W promulgated by t h e I n t e r s t a t e Commerce Commission i n connection t h e r e w i t h t o be c o n t r o l l i n g over c o n t r a r y p r o v i s i o n s of s t a t e law." Then, a s t o t h e s p e c i f i c s u b j e c t of r e g u l a t i o n of i n t e r s t a t e commercial motor v e h i c l e s t h i s Court, i n Sammons, s a i d : By enacting this legislation Congress has pre-empted the filed of state regulation and identification of interstate motor vehicles using Montana highways. The laws and regulations of the United States supersede the statutes of the state of Montana on the same subject to the extent that they are in conflict therewith and impose upon the Public Service Commission the duty to carry out such provisions by registration and identifi-. cation of interstate motor vehicles operated by common carriers using the highways,of Montana in the manner *.I1 prescribed by the federal statutes and regulations * II See also Eisenman Seed Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St.P.& P.R,R., 161 Mont. 197, 505 P.2d 81. Accordingly, we find the provisions of 49 U.S.C. and 49 C.F.R. §302(b) 1023 are controlling as to the registration and identification of motor vehicles engaged in interstate commerce using the highwaysof Montana, and to the extent that Montana statutes impose greater conflicting requirements, they constitute an undue burden on interstate commerce and must yield to federal authority. This Court specifically holds the state definition of a motor vehicle in section 8-101(6), R.C.M. 1947, relied upon by the Public Service Commission, expressly conflicts with federal law and the state may require a fee no greater than five dollars per motor vehicle, with the definition of such motor vehicle not to include the dollie, trailer or semitrailer for purposes of section 8-116(a), R.C.M. 1947. This opinion constitutes a declaratory judgment. Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue. Relators seek attorney fees in this cause. We decline to grant the same as the Public Service Commission was only following the command of the legislature, ' ,

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.