In re Petition of Golden Plains Servs. Transp.
297 Neb. 105
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Golden Plains Services Transportation, Inc. (Golden Plains) is a Nebraska-certified "open class" carrier; the Nebraska PSC alleged it was operating "on a taxi basis."
- The PSC ordered Golden Plains to cease taxi operations and Golden Plains sought a declaratory ruling on whether open class carriers may provide on-demand (taxi-like) service or are limited to prearranged trips.
- The PSC declined a declaratory ruling and instead opened an investigative proceeding, then issued an order interpreting 291 Neb. Admin. Code, ch. 3, § 010.01C to restrict open class carriers to prearranged, not on-demand, passenger-for-hire services.
- Golden Plains appealed the PSC’s interpretation, arguing Rule 010.01C does not limit open class carriers to prearranged service and that past operations should be grandfathered or protected by color-of-right principles.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the PSC order de novo, concluded the rule’s plain language does not support the PSC’s restriction, and reversed and vacated the PSC’s interpretation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 010.01C limits open class carriers to prearranged service only | Golden Plains: Rule 010.01C’s text does not contain a prearranged-only limitation; open class may operate prearranged or on-demand | PSC: Its interpretation under § 75-118.01 allows it to construe the rule to allow only prearranged service | Court: Reversed PSC — rule’s plain language does not limit open class carriers to prearranged service only |
| Whether Golden Plains should receive grandfathering/color-of-right protection for past on-demand operations | Golden Plains: Past operations justify grandfathering or protection | PSC: Did not apply grandfathering; enforcement action required cessation | Court: Did not decide on broad grandfathering; primary reversal based on rule interpretation (PSC order vacated) |
Key Cases Cited
- Shaffer v. Nebraska Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 289 Neb. 740 (Neb. 2014) (stating appellate review of statutory/regulatory interpretation is de novo)
- Chase 3000, Inc. v. Nebraska Pub. Serv. Comm., 273 Neb. 133 (Neb. 2007) (agency rule interpretation treated like statute)
- In re Proposed Amendments to Title 291, 264 Neb. 298 (Neb. 2002) (agency may interpret existing rules under § 75-118.01 but may not create new rules without APA procedures)
- Utelcom, Inc. v. Egr, 264 Neb. 1004 (Neb. 2002) (regulatory language given plain and ordinary meaning)