{
  "id": 1882697,
  "name": "LEE'S TRUCKING, INC., Appellant and Cross-Appellee v. TRANSPORT COMPANY, Inc. and Jarrell Transport, Inc., Appellees and Miller Transporters, Inc., Appellee and Cross-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Lee's Trucking, Inc. v. Transport Co.",
  "decision_date": "1990-10-29",
  "docket_number": "90-93",
  "first_page": "444",
  "last_page": "447",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "303 Ark. 444"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "798 S.W.2d 59"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "255 Ark. 919",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8725410
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/255/0919-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 23-2-403",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "282 Ark. 50",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1740747
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/282/0050-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 23-13-306",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(2)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "243 Ark. 516",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8721810
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/243/0516-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "209 Ark. 224",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1475711
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1945,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/209/0224-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "286 Ark. 116",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8717904
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/286/0116-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 336,
    "char_count": 5098,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.883,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.06907352513602144
    },
    "sha256": "24b7243789fe00b179d3618ae70558f0e227d3ce10f5c3d64b48af31b70c41d8",
    "simhash": "1:878f4d552896d2a2",
    "word_count": 806
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:41:20.399175+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "LEE\u2019S TRUCKING, INC., Appellant and Cross-Appellee v. TRANSPORT COMPANY, Inc. and Jarrell Transport, Inc., Appellees and Miller Transporters, Inc., Appellee and Cross-Appellant"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "David Newbern, Justice.\nLee\u2019s Trucking, Inc., (Lee\u2019s) sought a certificate of public convenience and necessity, amounting to an intrastate route approval, to serve transportation needs of the Georgia Pacific Company (GP) and International Paper Company (IP). The application was heard by the Transportation Regulatory Board which has since been abolished. Its functions have been assigned to the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department (AHTD) and the Arkansas Highway Commission. Lee\u2019s application was opposed by Jarrell Transport, Inc., (Jarrell) which had been servicing GP. It was opposed also by Transport Company, Inc., (Transport) which is authorized to transport petro-chemicals but which had not serviced either GP or IP, and by Miller Transporters, Inc., (Miller) which was authorized to service GP and IP. The board granted Lee\u2019s requests. The circuit court reversed the decision allowing Lee\u2019s to service GP but affirmed the decision to allow Lee\u2019s to service IP. Lee\u2019s appeals the court\u2019s decision with respect to its request to service GP. Miller appeals from the circuit court\u2019s affirmance of the board\u2019s decision to allow Lee\u2019s to service IP. We affirm the circuit court\u2019s decision allowing Lee\u2019s application with respect to IP, but we reverse the circuit court\u2019s decision with respect to Lee\u2019s servicing of GP.\n1. Service for GP\nWe review these cases de novo, and the standard to be applied is whether, (a) present service is inadequate; or (b) additional service would benefit the general public; or (c) that the existing carrier has been given an opportunity to furnish additional service as may be required. Batesville Truck Line v. Arkansas Freightways, Inc., 286 Ark. 116, 689 S.W.2d 553 (1985); Santee v. Brady, 209 Ark. 224,189 S.W.2d 907 (1945). In the Batesville Truck Line case we noted that if any one of these criteria were met, approval of the certificate of public convenience and necessity was warranted.\nWe have no trouble concluding, contrary to the trial court, that the evidence supports the conclusion that allowing Lee\u2019s to service GP would serve the public interest. The preponderance of the evidence is that GP seeks to expand its operation. The expansion will include an increase in the shipping of the petrochemicals of the sort handled by Lee\u2019s.\nA Mr. Riehle, GP\u2019s national transportation director, submitted a verified statement for the board\u2019s consideration, and he testified at the hearing before the board. While we agree with the trial court\u2019s criticism that Mr. Riehle\u2019s live testimony contradicted his verified statement in some other respects, nothing rebuts his statements about the expansion of business GP is undertaking and the need for additional transporters as a result. We find that testimony to be adequate and to constitute a preponderance of the evidence on the matter of benefit to the public in that it will facilitate the expansion of an industry and bring substantial economic benefits.\n2. Service for IP\nIn the case of IP, the board found that the service offered presently was inadequate. Mr. Laffey, an IP employee testified that IP was having real problems with transportation and had created his job position just to deal with it. He said the IP Pine Bluff plant was often unable to operate at full capacity because it could not obtain needed chemicals due to transport problems.\nMiller contradicted Laffey\u2019s testimony, but it was the board\u2019s job to determine the credibility of the witnesses. Batesville Truck Line v. Arkansas Freightways, Inc., supra. See also Fisher v. Branscum Moving and Storage Co., 243 Ark. 516, 420 S.W.2d 882 (1967).\nMiller also attacks the trial court\u2019s and the board\u2019s rulings on the ground that the testimony was not \u201ccorrelated\u201d to the findings. While Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 23-13-306(2) (1987) requires \u201cfindings. . .in sufficient detail to enable any court. . . to determine the controverted questions presented by the proceeding,\u201d there is no requirement of a \u201ccorrelation.\u201d The findings need only detail and discuss the testimony of the witnesses. Jones Truck Lines, Inc. v. Camden-El Dorado Express Co., 282 Ark. 50, 665 S.W.2d 867 (1984).\nMiller also contends that some of the testimony before the board was \u201cundocumented\u201d and hearsay. The board was not bound by rules of evidence and procedure which apply in the courts. See Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 23-2-403 (1987); Transport Co. v. Arkansas Transportation Commission, 255 Ark. 919, 504 S.W.2d 366 (1974).\nWe agree, on the basis of the criteria cited above, with the court and the board that the preponderance of the evidence supported Lee\u2019s application to serve IP.\nAffirmed in part and reversed in part.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "David Newbern, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Janis A. Richardson, for appellant.",
      "Harper, Young, Smith & Maurras; Kemp, Duckett, Hopkins & Spradley, and Kay L. Matthews, for appellee and cross-appellant Miller Transporters, Inc."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "LEE\u2019S TRUCKING, INC., Appellant and Cross-Appellee v. TRANSPORT COMPANY, Inc. and Jarrell Transport, Inc., Appellees and Miller Transporters, Inc., Appellee and Cross-Appellant\n90-93\n798 S.W.2d 59\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered October 29, 1990\nJanis A. Richardson, for appellant.\nHarper, Young, Smith & Maurras; Kemp, Duckett, Hopkins & Spradley, and Kay L. Matthews, for appellee and cross-appellant Miller Transporters, Inc."
  },
  "file_name": "0444-01",
  "first_page_order": 482,
  "last_page_order": 485
}