In re Petition of Golden Plains Servs. Transp.
297 Neb. 105
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Golden Plains Services Transportation, Inc. is certified in Nebraska as an “open class” carrier. The Nebraska Public Service Commission (Commission) alleged Golden Plains was operating “on a taxi basis” and ordered it to cease such operations.
- Golden Plains sought a declaratory ruling on whether 291 Neb. Admin. Code, ch. 3, § 010.01C (Rule 010.01C) permits open class carriers to provide on-demand (taxi-like) services or only prearranged services.
- The Commission declined a declaratory ruling on statewide importance grounds and opened an investigative proceeding, then issued an interpretation holding that open class carriers may provide transportation for hire on a prearranged basis only and may not provide on-demand services.
- Golden Plains appealed the Commission’s interpretation to the Nebraska Supreme Court, arguing the rule’s plain language does not limit open class carriers to prearranged service and that “grandfathering”/color-of-right protections should apply to its past operations.
- The Supreme Court reviewed the issue de novo, concluded the plain language of Rule 010.01C neither expressly restricts open class carriers to prearranged service nor forbids on-demand service, and found the Commission’s interpretation unsupportable.
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 plain language does not limit open class carriers to prearranged trips and permits on-demand service | Commission: Rule 010.01C should be read to allow only prearranged for-hire passenger service (no on-demand taxi service) | Court reversed: Rule 010.01C’s text does not impose a prearranged-only restriction; Commission’s interpretation was clearly erroneous |
| Whether Commission could lawfully adopt its interpretation without rulemaking | Golden Plains: Commission created a new restriction not found in the rule, which requires formal rulemaking | Commission: Authority under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 75-118.01 permits the Commission to determine scope/meaning of its regulations | Court held Commission exceeded its authority by reading an unsupported restriction into the rule (not mere interpretation) |
| Role of rule history and prior statements in construing Rule 010.01C | Golden Plains: Prior Commission comments and past practice show open class can be prearranged or on-demand; omission of limiting language shows intent not to restrict | Commission: Relied on its later interpretation and authority to define scope | Court: Did not need to rely on history because plain language controls, but noted prior Commission comments supported Golden Plains’ reading |
| Grandfathering/color-of-right claim for past operations | Golden Plains: Past authorized practice should protect its prior on-demand operations | Commission: Denied such protection and ceased taxi operations | Court did not adopt a grandfathering remedy in reversing the interpretation; it reversed the rule interpretation and did not grant or resolve a retroactive color-of-right exemption |
Key Cases Cited
- Shaffer v. Nebraska Dept. of Health & Human Servs., 289 Neb. 740 (discussing de novo review of legal questions and statutory interpretation)
- Chase 3000, Inc. v. Nebraska Pub. Serv. Comm., 273 Neb. 133 (agency authority to interpret regulations discussed)
- In re Proposed Amendments to Title 291, 264 Neb. 298 (agency interpretation vs. rulemaking; Commission authority to interpret terms in regs)
- Telrite Corp. v. Nebraska Pub. Serv. Comm., 288 Neb. 866 (later-cited statutory/administrative context for Commission actions)
- Utelcom, Inc. v. Egr, 264 Neb. 1004 (rules of construction for administrative regulations)