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 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 Rule 010.01C (definition of "open class service") permits on-demand (taxi-like) service or is limited to prearranged service.
- The Commission declined a declaratory ruling and initiated an investigative proceeding, then issued an order interpreting Rule 010.01C to allow only prearranged for-hire passenger service and to prohibit on-demand service by open class carriers.
- Golden Plains appealed the Commission’s interpretation to the Nebraska Supreme Court, arguing the rule does not restrict open class carriers to prearranged service and that past operations should be grandfathered.
- The Court reviewed the Commission’s interpretation de novo, treating the regulation like a statute and applying plain-meaning principles.
- The Court held the plain language of Rule 010.01C does not restrict open class service to prearranged trips and reversed and vacated the Commission’s interpretive order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 010.01C limits open class carriers to prearranged service only | Rule 010.01C’s plain language does not restrict open class carriers; they may provide on-demand service | Rule 010.01C should be read to permit only prearranged for-hire passenger service | Court held the rule’s plain language does not impose a prearranged-only restriction; Commission’s interpretation was unsupported and reversed |
| Whether the Commission properly issued an interpretive order under its statutory authority | Golden Plains argued the Commission exceeded its authority by effectively creating a new restriction not in the rule | Commission relied on its § 75-118.01 authority to interpret regulations and defend its order | Court held the Commission read a restriction into the rule that the text did not contain and thus improperly created a new rule rather than interpreting existing language; order vacated |
| Whether prior Commission comments and historical practice support Golden Plains' position | Golden Plains pointed to adopting comments and past Commission practice indicating open class may be prearranged or on-demand | Commission relied on later interpretive order to change scope | Court noted adopting comments contemporaneous with Rule 010.01C and contrasting definitions (e.g., "limousine service" expressly limited to prearranged) supported Golden Plains; history reinforced that the Commission’s new restriction was unwarranted |
| Whether "grandfathering" or "color of right" should apply to Golden Plains’ past operations | Golden Plains sought protection based on prior service history | Commission did not apply grandfathering | Court did not need to reach a separate grandfathering directive because it invalidated the Commission’s blanket restriction; therefore, the Commission’s order was vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- Shaffer v. Nebraska Dept. of Health & Human Servs., 289 Neb. 740 (statement of de novo review and interpretation principles)
- Chase 3000, Inc. v. Nebraska Pub. Serv. Comm., 273 Neb. 133 (agency rule interpretation under statutory authority)
- In re Proposed Amend. to Title 291, 264 Neb. 298 (agency interpretation vs. rulemaking—Commission may interpret terms in rules)
- Utelcom, Inc. v. Egr, 264 Neb. 1004 (plain-meaning construction of regulations)