THE SENTINEL STAR EXPRESS COMPANY, PETITIONER,
v.
WILLIAM T. MAYO, JERRY W. CARTER, AND EDWIN L. MASON, AS AND CONSTITUTING THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS
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 Florida Supreme Court denied certiorari, upholding the Florida Public Service Commission's orders regarding extensions of a transportation certificate. The court found the Commission's decision was supported by substantial evidence and followed the law.
Yes, the orders of the Commission are supported by competent, substantial evidence and do not deviate from the essential requirements of the law.
“It is clear that the order of the Commission is supported by competent, substantial evidence, and we find no' deviation from the essential requirements of the law.”
This quote establishes the court's finding that the Commission's decision was legally sound and factually supported.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Sentinel Star Express Company petitioned for certiorari to review two orders from the Florida Public Service Commission. Order No. 7743 granted so…
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 Administrative Agency Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
By petition for certiorari we review orders numbered 7743 and 7811 entered by respondent Commission in its Docket No. 8845-CCT. By order No. 7743 the Commission granted certain requested extensions of petitioner’s Certificate No. 673 pursuant to which it currently transports shipments of limited weights between points and places and over various regular routes throughout Central Florida. By the same order, it denied other requested extensions of the certificate. Rehearing was denied by Order No. 7811.
We have considered the record and briefs and have heard oral argument. It is clear that the order of the Commission is supported by competent, substantial evidence, and we find no' deviation from the essential requirements of the law. Certiorari is therefore denied.
It is so ordered.
CALDWELL, C. J., and DREW, THOR-NAL, ERVIN and HOPPING, JJ., concur.