Printable Format66-1,115. Private motor carriers of property must secure licenses or permits. It shall be unlawful for any private motor carrier to operate as a carrier of property or passengers within this state either in intrastate commerce or in interstate commerce without first having obtained from the commission a license or permit or without being registered pursuant to federal statutes. An application shall be made to the commission in writing stating such information as the commission may request. Upon receipt of such information and on compliance with the rules and regulations and payment of fees, the commission shall issue a license or permit to such applicant.
History: L. 1931, ch. 236, § 8; L. 1959, ch. 258, § 6; L. 1993, ch. 263, § 4; L. 2001, ch. 92, § 10; L. 2003, ch. 124, § 21; L. 2008, ch. 45, § 2; April 10.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
"Practice and Procedure Before the State Corporation Commission," Fred B. Adam, 41 J.B.A.K. 199, 201 (1972).
"Criminal Law-Random Spot Check for Driver's License and Motor Vehicle Registration Held Unconstitutional—Delaware v. Prouse," Thomas L. Griswold, 28 K.L.R. 345, 354 (1980).
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Requiring private carriers to procure license and give information is constitutional. Continental Baking Co. v. Woodring, 55 F.2d 347. Affirmed: 286 U.S. 352, 52 S. Ct. 595, 76 L.Ed. 1155.
2. Cited in distinguishing between classes of carriers in California. People v. Duntley, 217 Cal. 150, 17 P.2d 715, 718.
3. Later act requires hearing on application for permit; see 66-1,112b. Baldwin v. State Corporation Comm., 143 Kan. 580, 586, 56 P.2d 453.
4. Information sufficient to charge offense of operating without permit. State v. Reed, 145 Kan. 459, 461, 65 P.2d 1083.
5. Trucker held contract carrier; private and contract carriers distinguished; unlicensed contract carrier's contract illegal. Roddy v. Hill Packing Co., 156 Kan. 706, 713, 137 P.2d 215.
6. Cited; private carrier violated restricted permit; insurer not relieved of liability. Briggs v. Burk, 172 Kan. 375, 381, 239 P.2d 981.
7. Tort action under 66-1,128; exemption under 66-1,109 matter of defense. Sterling v. Hartenstein, 185 Kan. 50, 54, 55, 342 P.2d 90.
8. Orders of administrative agencies to be reasonable must be supported by substantial evidence. Darnell Truck Service v. State Corporation Commission, 194 Kan. 96, 97, 397 P.2d 385.
9. Mentioned; summary judgment not available to interpret certificate of convenience and necessity. Pelican Transfer & Storage v. State Corporation Commission, 195 Kan. 76, 79, 402 P.2d 762.
10. Allegations that statutes could not be applied to plaintiffs' business did not justify convening three-judge court; question of fact. Bartlett & Co., Grain v. State Corp. Com'n of Kansas, 223 F. Supp. 975, 977, 978, 981.
11. A certificate, prior to commission approval of transfer, constitutes at least a contingent liability and is subject to garnishment. Kirby v. United States, 329 F.2d 735, 737.