*1 P.2d FREIGHTWAYS, INC., dba Arizona Arizona
Petitioner,
The ARIZONA CORPORATION COM
MISSION, Tims, Jim Wеeks and Bud earn, Ah as Members of Said Com
John Corp. and Purolator Courier corporation, and Dial-A-Mes
New York
senger, corporation, Inc. an Arizona Interest, Respondents.
Real Parties Court Arizona.
Feb.
Rehearing Denied March
Yankee, Lutich, Bernstein & P. C. Thomas W. McLellan and A. Michael Bern- stein, Phoenix, pеtitioner. Corbin, Atty.
Robert K. Gen. Charles Pierson, Gen., Phoenix, Atty. S. Asst. Corp. Arizona Commission.
Evans, Hammond & Milliken Phil B. Tellier, Phoenix, Hammond and John R. Corp. CAMERON, Justice. petition
We ac- 7(a), pursuant tion to Rule Rules of Proce- Actions, A.R.S., Special dure for 17A Article 5 óf Constitution of state-wide im- because this is a matter portance equal, plain, speedy there is no adequate remedy by appeal. following question: We answer the must corporation Is the Arizona Commission es- topped of a necessity because in the certificate’s renewal or of a defect fifty years earlier? issuance in some The facts to a resolution of this issue as follows. On 4 June Corporation Commission issued a Arizona publiс conve- motor carrier certificate of (then necessity “permis- nience and called a sion”) peri- to Louis for a one Upon od. *2 permission setting transfer
mission renewed an the certificate to United expiration May date of Respondents Corpo- Inc. Inc., Dial-a-Messenger, ration and were promulgated In an Commission granted protestants as leave to intervene part: order relevant which read in “ * * * law, and filed a of memorandum which was permits and all certificates now by treated as a to the Commission motion outstanding issued and and which are not revocation, subject application. Respon- for to dismiss the any reason shall transfer automatically еxpire extended to on expired certificate contended that the December, day 1926 if the 31st on December 1928 because Schade’s permit in expiration date of named comply to the 30 failure with November рrior to that *. certificate is filing date Order 102-A. The of General permits renewal of “Applications for and motion to dismiss. Commission denied the be filed on certificates must or before the application rehearing, for Purolator filed an day November of the 30th calendar prior and the rescinded its deci- Commission authority operate in which the to granted motion sion and Purolator’s to dis- expires. grounds application on the miss the transfer Nо. General Order 102-A. expired that the certificate on December certificate were Renewals Schade’s was no consequently there certifi- extending by the Commission cate to The Commission also or- transfer. oрerate authority Schade’s to as a motor Attorney dered the General Arizona to December 1928. carrier until 31 Schade bring an enjoin action to application filed for renewal cer- an operations а certificated as motor year 1929 on tificate for the 26 December carrier. days of 30 after deadline Corpo- From the the Arizona decisions of by the imposed Commission Commission, petitioner Freightways, ration 102-A, days through but 5 General Order brought accept- action. We Inc. prior expiration certificate. jurisdiction stayed the ed Commission application Schade also filed an on 19 Feb- ruary appli- pending the 26 December decision determination 1930. Unlike and order cation on face that it which indicated by this court. renewal, Feb- application was the 19 an If the the certificate on 6 issuance of it ruary application did not indicate that Mаrch 1930 result of the Febru- was the application. On March was a renewal ary Commission renewed certificate was Schade’s jurisdiction have without to is- would been Commission, al- hearing without was no sue the certificate as there
though
whether the certificate
it is unclear
application. George
v. Arizona Cor-
on
application for
response
was
in
to the
issued
Commission,
poration
renewal,
or the
filed on 26
application
the late
As to
February
application
on
filed
renewal
26 December
filed
order,
contends:
transfers,
approved
all
After a series of
view,
language of General
“In our
Commission,
Freight-
petitioner
as to the deadlinе
Order No. 102-A
ways
possession
the certificate.
came into
jurisdiction-
application is
renewal
been,
as
Thus
above,
As
authori-
al.
we noted
holder of
far as the Commission
concerned,
continually
ty
of certificаtes
renewal
effect,
since
force
if not
ap-
102-A.
would
General
Order
1924, at
on 9 June
originally
issued
then,
compliance with its
pear,
strict
least
6 March
since
prerequisite
ex-
provisions would be a
renewing
under
privilege
ercise of
Freightways filed
On 21 December
General
102-A.”
the Commission
Order
Indeed,
application.
parties agree
at
the Commission file
power to waive
a memo to the Commission which
time had the
strict
contains
compliance
certificate “was not
with its
but there is no
states
year”
renewed last
because of a failure
indication that this was done in the instant
pay
because,
reports
file
taxes as a result of a
surprising
case. This is not
Transfеrman’s Asso-
time,
lawsuit
passage
such action
question,
contains the
ciation. The memo
present-
*3
reflected in the contents of the file
for the
you
“Do
wish to issue certificate
however,
ly
Assuming,
that
the
hearing?
a
Please ad-
1930 or hold
jurisdictional
vise.” One commissioner initialed after
(permission)
and that
writing
“approved,” and the
in the word
after 31
we
void
believe
other noted “issue without
as the
estopped
that the Commission is
the
agreed
parties
thе
validity
fifty
of the certificate after over
only
suit.” We believe that not
did the
years
of use
various holders.
facts,
expected
the
Commission know
or,
Equitable estoppel
as it is sometimes
the certificate to be used
Sсhade and his
called, estoppel
pais,
may
generally
not
recognized by
successors in interest
the
against
sovereign.
be invoked
This as?
public.
pub-
The certificate holders and the
sumes,
course,
that
the elements of es-
exactly
fifty years.
lic did
that
for over
toppel exist:
hand,
Freightways, on the other
lacked
“Equitable estoppel
is a rule of
knowledge
any
defect in the certificate
which,
field,
prevails
in its
over all
certificаte,
upon
relied
and if the
(citation omitted)
equita-
other
An
canceling
Commission succeeds in
their cer-
estoppel
ble
will be found
where all
tificate, Freightways certainly
prej-
will be
necessary
the elements
for its invocation
position.
udiced
the Commission’s
It is
are shown to the court.
United
Freightways,
accepted
true that
when it
Georgia-Pacific Company,
States
transfer of the
could have dis-
(9th
1970).
Cir.
respon-
covered the same informаtion the
Ninth
Circuit Court of
however,
agree,
herein
found. We
Appeals has stated:
with the United States Ninth Circuit Court
present
“Four elements must be
to estab
that
reliance should be con-
estoppel:
(1)
lish the defense for
person sincerely
if
sidered reasonable
“a
estopped
must know the
obeying
desirous of
the law would have
facts; (2) he must intend that his conduct
true,
accepted the information as
and would
shall be acted on or must so act thаt the
put
not have been
fur-
on notice to make
party asserting
has a
inquiries.”
Lansing,
ther
United States v.
intended;
(3)
believe it is so
the latter
424 F.2d
facts;
ignorant
must be
of the true
immaterial
(4)
rely
he must
on the former’s conduct
Schade,
facts,
knоwing
holder
not
injury,
(citation omitted)” Hamp
to his
have been able to avail himself of the doc-
ton v.
Paramount Pictures
trine of
in 1930. We are concerned
279 F.2d
84 A.L.R.2d
availability
here with the
of the doctrine to
(9th Cir.),1
cert. denied 364 U.S.
holder,
prеsent
Freightways.
S.Ct.
“In
such as
laches,
functions,
justice
lie
where
will not
state,
it,
agencies
applied
will
or subdivisions in
dеmand
the doctrine
be
affecting governmental
matters
or sover-
Silver
Consolidated School
functions,
omitted)
eign
(citations
Regents,
On
District No. 1
Board
state,
agency
106, 111,
the other
when the
or
401 P.2d
N.M.
proprietary
municipality aсts within
Admittedly,
much
we base
of our decision
equitable
capacity,
these
defenses
long period
elapsed
on the
of time
”
* * *
(citations omitted)
in the issuance of the
between the defect
Mohave-Kingman
County v.
Mohave
attempt by the Commis-
certificate and the
tates, Inc.,
417, 421,
time
neces-
to cancel it. How much
sion
ripen
can
into
sary before a void certificate
excep
Whatever the basis for these
consider at this
valid сertificate we do not
rule,
appear
general
tions to the
it would
on a
will have to be determined
time. That
will
that where the
basis,
hesitancy
but we have no
case
case
state of its
not affect
the exercise
century is sufficient.
saying
that a half
governmental powers
sovereignty,
its decision
the Commission based
Since
bind it
unauthorized acts of its officers
alone and
on the
will,
employees,
when
objection raised
did not consider the оther
dictates,
Anno
be
to the state. See
protestants,
the two
that is whether
tation,
Note,