STATE EX REL CHEMICAL TRANSPORT v
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 13557 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1977 STATE ex rel., CHEMICAL TRANSPORT et al., Relator and Appellant, -vsGORDON E. BOLLINGER et al., Respondent and Respondent. Appeal from: District Court of the First Judicial District, Honorable Gordon R. Bennett, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Scribner and Huss, Helena, Montana A. W. Scribner argued, Helena, Montana For Respondent: Geoffrey L. Brazier argued, Helena, Montana Charles H. Dickman, Helena, Montana Robert Smith argued, Helena, Montana Submitted: Decided: Filed: 'AUG 2 2 1n 9 April 20, 1977 AUG 2 2 1 9 ~ M r . J u s t i c e Gene B . Daly delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Relator appeals from t h e order and f i n a l judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Lewis and Clark County. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t o r d e r granted t h e Consumer Counsel's motion t o dismiss r e l a t o r ' s a p p l i c a t i o n f o r w r i t of mandate. Judgment was entered i n favor of t h e Consumer Counsel, intervenor respondent here. Relator i s a motor v e h i c l e common c a r r i e r operating i n i n t e r s t a t e and i n t r a s t a t e commerce. I t s i n t r a s t a t e operations a r e conducted under c e r t i f i c a t e s issued by t h e Montana Public Service Commission and under t h e provisions of T i t l e 8 , Chapter 1, Revised Codes of Montana. On June 26, 1975, r e l a t o r f i l e d with t h e Public Service Commission i t s Supplement No. 6 t o Commodity T a r i f f No. 2(A), specifying proposed i n c r e a s e s i n i n t r a s t a t e motor c a r r i e r r a t e s on a c i d chemicals and o t h e r commodities, t o be e f f e c t i v e August 1, 1975. On o r about t h e time of f i l i n g i t s Supplement No. 6 , r e l a t o r a l s o f i l e d i t s sworn statements and e x h i b i t s supporting t h e proposed changes and r e v i s i o n s . On J u l y 22, 1975, t h e Public Service Commission entered a suspension o r d e r , pursuant t o s e c t i o n 8-104.5, R,CbM.1947, suspending r e l a t o r ' s proposed t a r i f f schedule, pending a hearing a s t o t h e reasonableness of t h e proposed increased r a t e s . The Public Service Commission s e t t h e matter t o be heard on November 18, 1975. I n i t s pleadings t o t h e Public Service Commission, a t t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e l e v e l , t h e Consumer Counsel requested a p u b l i c hearing. P r i o r t o t h e d a t e of t h e h e a r i n g , t h e Consumer Counsel served w r i t t e n i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s upon r e l a t o r demanding t h e same be answered before t h e hearing. Relator objected t o t h e i n t e r r o - gatories. The Public Service Commission n o t i f i e d t h e p a r t i e s t h a t o r a l argument upon t h e o b j e c t i o n s would be heard a t t h e time s e t f o r hearing on t h e m e r i t s . O t h e d a t e s e t f o r hearing, t h e Public Service Commission n heard o r a l arguments on t h e o b j e c t i o n s t o i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s , b u t declined t o hear t h e case on i t s m e r i t s and postponed,the matter t o a d a t e and time t o be s e t by t h e commission. A t that time 119 days had elapsed s i n c e t h e d a t e of t h e order suspending r e l a t o r ' s new t a r i f f schedules. During o r a l argument t h e Public Service Commission ehairman asked r e l a t o r ' s counsel whether r e l a t o r was w i l l i n g t o waive t h e 180 day period of suspension. Counsel r e p l i e d r e l a t o r was unwilling t o do so. The matter was never rescheduled f o r hearing. On December 3 , 1975 (15 days a f t e r t h e p r i o r hearing and 134 days a f t e r t h e suspension order) t h e Public Service Commission overruled r e l a t o r ' s general objections t o the interrogatories. The Public Service Commission d i d n o t n o t i f y t h e p a r t i e s of t h i s a c t i o n u n t i l January 5 , 1976 (33 days a f t e r t h e a c t i o n was taken and 167 days a f t e r t h e suspension o r d e r ) . The r u l i n g purported t o give r e l a t o r u n t i l January 19, 1976, (181 days a f t e r t h e suspension o r d e r ) t o answer o r o b j e c t t o the Consumer Counsel's i n t e r r o g a tories. By l e t t e r dated January 16, 1976, r e l a t o r advised t h e Public Service Commissionf "Please be advised t h a t t h e 180 day-: period which i s prescribed i n s e c t i o n 8-104.5, R.C.M. 1947, e x p i r e s on January 18, 1976. N hearing having been held nor o o r d e r issued within such period, pursuant t o t h e a f o r e mentioned s e c t i o n , t h e t a r i f f r e v i s i o n s proposed i n t h i s docket a r e deemed approved and e f f e c t i v e a s f i l e d . "For t h i s reason we consider t h e i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s submitted i n connection with a hearing i n t h i s proceeding a s moot, and do not intend t o respond t o them." Relator t h e r e a f t e r tendered t o t h e Public Service Commission f o r f i l i n g i t s Supplement No. 7, n o t i f y i n g customers of t h e increased r a t e s . By l e t t e r dated January 21, 1976, t h e Public Service Commission r e j e c t e d Supplement No. 7 and ordered r e l a t o r : ** "* n o t t o a s s e s s o r c o l l e c t t h e f u l l amount of t h e until v a r i o u s chemical r a t e increases requested such time a s t h e Montana Public Service Commission makes a f i n a l determination a s t o t h e v a l i d i t y and lawfulness of such increase i n r a t e s . *** *** "* ** t h e Commission f e e l s t h e i n t e r r o g a t o r y question i s s t i l l a t issue." On January 28, 1976, r e l a t o r f i l e d an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r w r i t of mandate i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . Upon issuance of t h e w r i t of mandate o r o t h e r appropriate w r i t , r e l a t o r sought t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s d i r e c t i v e (1) i n s t r u c t i n g t h e Public Service Commission t o accept f o r f i l i n g r e l a t o r ' s Supplement No. 7 t o i t s Commodity T a r i f f No. 2 ( A ) , thus implementing t h e r a t e i n c r e a s e s provided f o r i n Supplement No. 6; (2) t h a t judgment be entered i n favor of r e l a t o r f o r reasonable a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s and c o s t s ; and ( 3 ) t h a t respondents be ordered t o appear and show cause why: t h e r e l i e f sought should not be granted. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t issued an order t o show cause compelling respondents t o appear before t h e c o u r t on February 11, 1976. O February 6 , 1976, t h e Consumer Counsel f i l e d a motion n t o intervene and a motion t o dismiss r e l a t o r ' s p e t i t i o n on t h e ground it f a i l e d t o s t a t e a claim upon which r e l i e f could be granted. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t granted Consumer Counsel's motion t o dismiss and judgment was entered i n favor of Montana Consumer Counsel, t h e intervenor respondent. court held: The judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t "* ** t h a t i n s o f a r a s t h e noted provisd of Section 8-104.5 works o r can work t o shut o u t a hearing r e quested by t h e consumer counsel it c o n f l i c t s with out c o n s t i t u t i o n a l and l e g a l provisions having t o do with t h e counsel." The p a r t i e s t o t h i s a c t i o n l i s t s e v e r a l i s s u e s f o r review. However, we f i n d t h e c e n t r a l and c o n t r o l l i n g i s s u e i s whether t h e Public Service Commission i s j u s t i f i e d i n r e f u s i n g t o accept f o r f i l i n g r e l a t o r ' s proposed t a r i f f schedule on t h e grounds s e c t i o n 8-104.5 c o n f l i c t s with t h e Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n , 'the Montana Consumer Counsel Act, t h e Montana Administrative Procedure Act and o t h e r p e r t i n e n t s t a t u t o r y provisions a f f e c t i n g t h e Montana Consumer Counsel. Sections 8-104-;I., 8-104.2 and 8-104.5, R.C.M. 1947, s e t f o r t h t h e procedures f o r r e v i s i n g motor v e h i c l e : common c a r r i e r r a t e schedules: "8-104.1. Board's duty t o f i x r a t e s . It s h a l l be t h e duty o f t h e board t o f i x , a l t e r , r e g u l a t e and determine j u s t , f a i r , reasonable, nondiscriminatory, and s u f f i c f a r e s , charges, c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s , and r u l e s - ient rates, of s e r v i c e f o r t h e operation of c l a s s A and B motor c a r r i e r s within t h i s s t a t e . The board a l s o may f i x and determine reasonable maximum o r minimum t a t e s f o r t h e operations of any c l a s s C motor c a r r i e r when t h e same a r e required f o r t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s of public t r a n s p o r t a tion." (Emphasis added. ) - "8-104.2. Rate schedules, f i l i n g with board. Every c l a s s A o r B motor c a r r i e r holding a c e r t i f i c a t e must maintain on f i l e . with t h e board a f u l l and complete schedule of i t s r a t e s , f a r e s , charges, c l a s s i f F c a t i o n s , r u l e s of s e r v i c e , and any and a l l t a r i f f provisions r e l a t i n g t o such r a t e s , f a r e s , charges, c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s , o r r u l e s . Every schedule on f i l e with and approved by t h e board on t h e e f f e c t i v e d a t e of t h i s a c t s h a l l remain i n f u l l f o r c e and e f f e c t u n t i l changed o r modified by t h e board o r by t h e c a r r i e r with t h e approval of t h e board. - "No change, modification, a l t e r a t i o n , i n c r e a s e , o r decrease i n any r a t e , f a r e , charge, c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , o r r u l e of s e r v i c e s h a l l be made by any motor c a r r i e r without f i r s t obtaining t h e approval of t h e board. The board s h a l l p r e s c r i b e r u l e s and/or r e g u l a t i o n s providing f o r t h e form and s t y l e of a l l schedules and t a r i f f s and f o r t h e procedures t o be followed i n f i l i n g o r publishing any changes o r modifications of t h e same." (Emphasis added.) "8-104.5. Changes, r e v i s i o n s of r a t e schedules, how made. N motor c a r r i e r s h a l l change o r r e v i s e any r a t e , f a r e , o charge, c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , o r r u l e of s e r v i c e contained i n i t s s h e d u l e without f i r s t obtaining approval t h e r e f o r from t h e board. Such changes o r r e v i s i o n s s h a l l be made by f i l i n g with t h e board t h e t a r i f f s h e e t o r s h e e t s cont a i n i n g such changes o r r e v i s i o n s , p l a i n l y s t a t i n g t h e change o r changes, o r r e v i s i o n o r r e v i s i o n s , t o be made; provided f u r t h e r , t h a t t h e public s h a l l be provided with such n o t i c e of t h e proposed changes o r r e v i s i o n s a s t h e board s h a l l , by r u l e , require. The t a r i f f s h e e t o r s h e e t s containing such changes o r r e v i s i o n s s h a l l be deemed approved and e f f e c t i v e t h i r t y (30) days a f t e r t h e same a r e f i l e d unless t h e proposed r e v i s i o n s o r changes a r e suspended o r disallowed by t h e board p r i o r t o t h e e x p i r a t i o n of t h e t h i r t y (30) day period; provided however, t h a t t h e board may, f o r good cause, allow any change o r r e v i s i o n t o become e f f e c t i v e on l e s s than t h i r t y (30) days a f t e r t h e f i l i n g thereof. Upon f i l i n g such changes o r r e v i s i o n s , a l l t a r i f f s h e e t o r s h e e t s , when suspended by t h e board, must be supported by such prepared testimony and e x h i b i t s from t h e motor c a r r i e r a s w i l l support such changes o r r e v i s i o n s . The prepared testimony and e x h i b i t s must be f i l e d with t h e commission t h i r t y (30) days a f t e r t h e e f f e c t i v e d a t e of such suspension. Such testimony and e x h i b i t s may be supplemented p r i o r t o , o r a t t h e time of hearing, and supplemental e x h i b i t s may be f i l e d a f t e r t h e c l o s e of t h e hearing a t t h e d i r e c t i o n o r with permission of t h e commission. , - "Upon i t s own i n i t i a t i v e , o r upon t h e complaint of any i n t e r e s t e d p a r t y f i l e d with t h e board w i t h i n twenty (20) days a f t e r t h e d a t e upon which a change o r r e v i s i o n of any r a t e , f a r e , charge o r c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i s f i l e d with t h e board, t h e board may suspend t h e operation of such r a t e , f a r e , charge, o r c l a s s i f i c a t i o n f o r a period n o t t o exceed one hundred e i g h t y (180) days, provided however t h a t t h e o r d e r d i r e c t i n g such suspension must be issued by t h e board n o t l e s s than two (2) business days p r i o r t o t h e proposed e f f e c t i v e d a t e ; and provided f u r t h e r , t h a t t h e motor c a r r i e r o r c a r r i e r s "_filing;such r a t e , f a r e , charge, o r c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s h a l l be given prompt n o t i c e by t h e complaining p a r t y mailing a copy of t h e complaint concerning such proposed change o r r e v i s i o n t o t h e c a r r i e r o r publishing a g e n t , and such c a r r i e r o r c a r r i e r s a l s o s h a l l be given an opportunity t o r e p l y t o any such complaint. I f t h e proposed change o r r e v i s i o n i s i n a t a r i f f issued by a t a r i f f publishing bureau f o r a motor c a r r i e r o r c a r r i e r s , n o t i c e t o such bureau of any complaint w i l l c o n s t i t u t e n o t i c e t o the p a r t i c i p a t i n g c a r r i e r s i n such t a r i f f . When t h e suspension of any proposed change o r r e v i s i o n i n a t a r i f f i s ordered by t h e board, it s h a l l a l s o o r d e r a p u b l i c hearing t o consider the reasonableness of t h e proposed change o r r e v i s i o n ; due n o t i c e s h a l l be given f o r such hearing t o a l l known i n t e r e s t e d , o r a f f e c t e d persons and t h e same s h a l l be allowed t o appear and p r e s e n t evidence. A f t e r considering t h e evidence presented a t such hearing, t h e board s h a l l i s s u e an order approving, denying, o r modifying t h e proposed change o r r e v i s i o n ; provided however, t h a t unless such hearing i s ' h e l d and such order i s issued w i t h i n one hundred e i g h t y (180) days from t h e d a t e upon which t h e suspension was ordered, t h e proposed chanp.e o r r e v i s i o n s h a l l be deemed approved and e f f e c t i v e a s f i l e d . " (Emphds addedJ Relator contends t h e p l a i n , c l e a r and unambiguous language of s e c t i o n 8-104.5- s p e c i f i e s t a r i f f r e v i s i o n s become e f f e c t i v e 30 days a f t e r they a r e f i l e d , unless w i t h i n t h a t period t h e Public Service Commission i s s u e s a suspension o t d e r , which may cover a period of no longer than 180 days. The P u b l i c Service Commission i s empowered t o approve, deny o r modify t h e submitted t a r i f f schedules, w i t h i n and hearing. t h e suspension p e r i o d , a f t e r n o t i c e Unless a hearing i s h e l d and an order issued by t h e Public Service Commission, t h e t a r i f f r e v i s i o n s a r e deemed approved and e f f e c t i v e a s f i l e d . Since t h e Public Service Commis-' s i o n d i d n o t hold a hearing i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , w i t h i n 180 days from t h e d a t e t h e suspension was ordered, r e l a t o r concludes a w r i t of mandate should be issued compelling t h e Public Ggrvice Commission t o accept f o r f i l i n g , a s approved and e f f e c t i v e , r e l a t o r ' s t a r i f f schedule. Respondents argue "changing l e g a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n t h i s case1' a c t t o amend o r modify t h e 180 day suspension r u l e i n t h e Motor C a r r i e r Act when t h e 180 day r u l e deprives t h e Consumer Counsel of i t s r i g h t t o a hearing. Respondents s p e c i f i c a l l y c i t e : (1) A r t . 11, Section 8 , 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n , which i n s u r e s t h e r i g h t of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e operation of s t a t e agencies p r i o r t o f i n a l d e c i s i o n ; (2) A r t . X I I I , Section 2 , 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n , which e s t a b l i s h e s t h e o f f i c e of Consumer Counsel f o r t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of consumer i n t e r e s t s before t h e Public Service Commission, and ( 3 ) t h e Montana Administ r a t i v e Procedure Act a s t h e c a t a l y s t s p r e c i p i t a t i n g t h e changing r o l e s i n t h e f i e l d of u t i l i t y and t r a n s p o r t a t i o n r a t e r e g u l a t i o n . We believe respondents have incorrectly characterized the issue in this case as a conflict between statutory mandat~sand constitutional guarantees. The present action arose only because the Public Service Commission failed to hold a procedural hearing within the 180 day statutory limitation. The sole obstacle which confronted the Public Service Commission was a determination of whether or not relator was compelled to answer written interrogatories submitted by the Consumer Counsel. We fail to see how such a deterent could be the basis for the Public Service Commission failing to timely schedule the requested procedural hearing. The Montana legislature Eixed 180 days as the maximum period of suspension. It seems clear to this Court that our extension of that period would in effect amend the statute and that is a matter beyond this Court's power. Art. 111, Section 1, 1972 Montana Constitution; Arrow Transportation Co. v. Southern Railway Co., 308 F.2d 181 (1962), cert. granted 371 U.S. 859, 372 U.S. 658, 83 S.Ct. 984, 10 L ed 2d 52 (1963). We likewise fail to find any constitutional basis for overturning the statute. Even if this Caurt was empowered to amend the 180 day period of suspension, the Consumer Counsel would have no assurance a timely hearing would be scheduled by the Public Service Commission. Without any statutory period of maximum suspension, motor carriers could incur substantial time lags in obtaining rate increases since the Public Service Commission could postpone and reschedule hearings without restriction. If the 180 day period of suspension is inadequate the proper recourse is for respondents to seek legislative amendment of the statute, not judicial interference. W n o t e t h e r e s u l t a n t e f f e c t of t h e 180 day period of e suspension i s n o t t o deprive t h e ~ o n s u m e r O t n r n ~ f ? z b o r any o t h e r i n t e r e s t e d member of t h e p u b l i c , a v e h i c l e f o r challenging t h e reasonableness of a motor c a r r i e r ' s proposed i n t r a s t a t e r a t e increase. Section 8-104.4, R.C.M. 1947, i n p a r t speci- f i c a l l y provides: "The board may, upon i t s own i n i t i a t i v e o r upon t h e complaint of any i n t e r e s t e d p a r t y , i n v e s t i g a t e any r a t e , f a r e , charge, c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , o r r u l e of s e r v i c e contained i n t h e schedule of any motor c a r r i e r ; i f t h e board s h a l l f i n d , a f t e r such i n v e s t i g a t i o n , t h a t any such r a t e , f a r e , charge, c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , o r r u l e of s e r v i c e i s u n f a i r , u n j u s t , unreasonable, o r discriminatory, i t s h a l l disallow t h e same and f i x a r a t e , f a r e , charge, c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , o r r u l e of s e r v i c e which s h a l l be f a i r , j u s t , reasona b l e , and nondiscriminatory, and i t s h a l l order t h e a f f e c t e d motor c a r r i e r o r c a r r i e r s t o conform t o such modified schedule; provided, however, t h a t each motor c a r r i e r a f f e c t e d by any complaint o r i n v e s t i g a t i o n s h a l l f i r s t be given n o t i c e of the same and an opportunity t o be heard before t h e board." I n t h i s opinion t h i s Court r e f r a i n s from considering e i t h e r t h e p r o p r i e t y o r reasonableness r a t e increases. of r e l a t o r ' s proposed W hold only t h a t t h e Public Service Commission, e i n r e f u s i n g t o approve and give e f f e c t t o r e l a t o r ' s proposed t a r i f f schedules, has f a i l e d t o perform a c l e a r l e g a l duty a r i s i n g under t h e Montana Motor C a r r i e r Act. The order and judgment of the d i s t r i c t c o u r t a r e reversed and t h e cause i s remanded f o r issuance of t h e w r i t of mandate sought by r e l a t o r , c o n s i s t e n t with t h i s opinion. Chief J u s t i c e - ................ M r . J u s t i c e Daniel J. Shea took no p a r t i n t h i s Opinion. ......*......*..
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.
