BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
v.
OVERTON, ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Board of County Commissioners sought to enforce an exclusive taxicab franchise at a county airport against independent operators who claimed the right to serve passengers going to and from the airport. The court upheld the exclusive franchise, relying on North American Co. v. Bird, but carved out narrow exceptions for delivering privately owned vehicles and rented vehicles upon customer request.
The court held that the exclusive franchise prohibits independent taxicab operators from entering airport grounds to service passengers, as such arrangement constitutes an illegal encroachment upon the exclusive franchise. However, the court carved out two narrow exceptions: (1) delivering a privately owned car to the airport upon request of the owner, and (2) delivering a rented 'U-Drive-It' car to an incoming party who had previously hired it.
“The Supreme Court in that case held that such an arrangement was an illegal encroachment upon an exclusive franchise.”
The court's application of precedent from North American Co. v. Bird to establish that taxicab franchise violations constitute illegal encroachment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Board of County Commissioners held an exclusive franchise for taxicab services at the airport. Taxicab operators (defendants) sought to enter airp…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Exclusive Franchise cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause came on for the entry of final decree upon; the testimony taken orally before the court, and argument of counsel.
The principal dispute between the county and defendant taxicab operators grows out of the claim of the taxicab operators that they should be permitted “to enter upon the airport grounds to fulfill an existing contract of employment with a passenger or intended passenger by either (a) transporting him upon order from the airport, or (b) by transporting him upon order to the airport for the purpose of picking up thereat and transporting therefrom another person or persons of the passenger’s choice.”
In this connection the court has examined the case of North American Co. v. Bird (Fla. 1952), 61 So. 2d 198. A transcript of the record which was before the Supreme Court of Florida in that case has been furnished this court by the attorney for the board of county commissioners. The question there was whether or not a hotel could engage a taxicab operator of its choice to proceed to the airport and fetch the hotel’s guest to the hotel. The Supreme Court in that case held that such an arrangement was an illegal encroachment upon an exclusive franchise.
The issues presented to this court in the instant case seem no different in principle, and the court concludes that the dispute existing between the parties to this suit has been settled by the Supreme Court contrary to defendants’ contentions.
Thereupon, it is ordered and decreed that the temporary injunction shall be and is hereby made permanent, provided, however, the injunction shall not prohibit the right of any defendant to deliver to the airport a car owned by a private person upon request of such person,, the only service to be performed by this defendant being that he was hired to deliver the car to the third person or for the third person at the airport, and to deliver to a customer arriving at the airport from another airport a “U-Drive-It” car that had previously 'been hired by the incoming party.
Court costs are assessed against the defendants.