WELLS FARGO ARMORED SERVICE CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, AND BRINK'S, INCORPORATED OF FLORIDA, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, PETITIONERS,
v.
JESS YARBOROUGH ET AL., 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.
Petitioners Wells Fargo and Brink's sought certiorari to overturn the Public Service Commission's grant of a certificate to The Messenger, Inc. to provide armored car service in Bay County, Florida. The Florida Supreme Court upheld the Commission's decision, finding substantial evidence supporting the certificate grant.
The Public Service Commission's order granting the certificate was properly supported by substantial evidence in the record and comported with the essential requirements of law. Claims regarding the underlying banking law violation were barred from review as matters exclusively within federal district court jurisdiction.
[1] A Public Service Commission's grant of a certificate of public convenience and necessity is subject to review for competent substantial evidence supporting the decision.
[2] A federal court injunction prohibiting a bank from providing its own armored car service as an illegal banking practice precludes a state Public Service Commission or sta…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The continuing complaint here to the same effect must be carried back to the federal district court, if such contention be well founded. This is not a matter for the Public Service Commission's determination nor for this court's review.”
Establishes that federal banking law questions are exclusively within federal court jurisdiction and cannot be reviewed by the state Public Service Commission or Supreme Court.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTwo Panama City banks previously operated armored car services using bank-owned vehicles to transport deposits, which was halted by federal court inju…
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 Branch Banking cases and more on FLexlaw
Petition for certiorari here is directed toward an order of the Public Service Commission which granted to another armored car service a certificate of public convenience and necessity to transport in common carriage money and other valuables in Bay County and an adjoining portion of Washington County. Two Panama City, Florida, banks, the Panama City National Bank (formerly Bay National Bank) and the First National Bank of Panama City (formerly “of St. Andrews”) previously provided pickup service to its own customers in an armored car owned by one of the banks. This was halted as an illegal banking practice by the federal district court, Northern District of Florida. (We refer to this more fully hereafter.)
Petitioners assert that the same banks have now “created” The Messenger, Inc., the successful applicant here, for the same purpose and suggest that the Commission failed to penetrate the agreements between *450the banks and Messenger, Inc. They also assert that the personnel involved are so tied together as to be one and the same and not an independent entity. Petitioner asserts, thirdly, that Messenger, Inc., does not meet the qualifications under the certificate to transport money and securities.
We examine first the claim that the practice of a bank providing its own armored car service constitutes a breach of “branch banking’’ as prohibited by Fla.Stat. 659.06, F.S.A. This question was entirely dealt with by the federal district court by injunction on May 21, 1970, in the case of Dickinson v. Bay National and First National Banks, U. S. District Court, Northern District of Florida, F.Supp. That opinion referred to First National Bank in Plant City v. Dickinson, 396 U.S. 122, 90 S.Ct. 337, 24 L.Ed.2d 312 (1969), on the subject of prohibited “branch banking” in Florida and enjoined the transporting of deposits from customers to banks “in an armored car owned by Bay National Bank.” [Emphasis ours.] The continuing complaint here to the same effect must be carried back to the federal district court, if such contention be well founded. This is not a matter for the Public Service Commission’s determination nor for this court’s review.
The basic question on petitioner’s other contentions is really dependent upon whether the record shows competent substantial evidence supporting the Commission’s granting of the certificate. A review of the rather substantial record convinces us that it is so supported and that the petition is not well founded.
Since the order of the Commission comports with the essential requirements of law, the petition for certiorari is
Denied.
ROBERTS, C. J., ERVIN and CARLTON, JJ., and CREWS, Circuit Judge, concur.