In re Petition of Golden Plains Servs. Transp.
297 Neb. 105
Neb.2017Background
- Golden Plains Services Transportation, Inc. is a Nebraska-certified "open class" carrier; the Public Service Commission alleged it was operating "on a taxi basis."
- The Commission ordered Golden Plains to cease taxi operations and Golden Plains sought a declaratory ruling on the scope of services permitted under 291 Neb. Admin. Code, ch. 3, § 010.01C (Rule 010.01C).
- The Commission declined a declaratory ruling and opened an investigative proceeding, then issued an interpretation that open class carriers may provide passenger-for-hire service only on a prearranged basis and may not provide on-demand (taxi-like) service.
- Golden Plains appealed, arguing Rule 010.01C does not restrict open class carriers to prearranged service and that its past operations should be protected by "grandfathering" or "color of right" principles.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the regulation de novo, treating the rule as a statute and asking whether its plain language limited open class carriers to prearranged service.
- The Court concluded Rule 010.01C’s language does not restrict open class carriers to prearranged service, noting prior Commission commentary and contrasting defined "limousine service" language that explicitly limits prearranged service.
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 does not contain language limiting open class carriers to prearranged service and thus allows on-demand service | Commission: Rule 010.01C should be interpreted to allow only prearranged for-hire service, not on-demand taxi service | Court: Reversed — rule’s plain language does not impose a prearranged-only restriction; Commission’s interpretation was erroneous |
| Whether Golden Plains’ past operations are protected by grandfathering / color of right | Golden Plains: Its past service history warrants grandfathering or protection from enforcement | Commission: No applicable grandfathering; enforcement appropriate | Court: Did not adopt grandfathering; resolution based on statutory/regulatory interpretation (primary ruling was that restriction cannot be read into the rule) |
Key Cases Cited
- Shaffer v. Nebraska Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 289 Neb. 740 (standards for de novo review of agency statutory interpretation)
- Chase 3000, Inc. v. Nebraska Pub. Serv. Comm., 273 Neb. 133 (agency authority to interpret regulations discussed)
- In re Proposed Amend. to Title 291, 264 Neb. 298 (Commission may interpret terms used in rules but cannot create regulation by reading unsupported restrictions into a rule)
- Utelcom, Inc. v. Egr, 264 Neb. 1004 (plain-meaning rule for interpreting administrative regulations)