Printable Format66-1,116. Public motor carriers operating as common carriers in interstate commerce register in base state; exempt carriers shall provide certain information. (a) It shall be unlawful for a public motor carrier of property, of household goods or of passengers to operate in interstate commerce regulated by the relevant federal agency without registering its motor vehicles in its base state pursuant to federal statutes in order to operate in Kansas.
(b) It shall be unlawful for a public motor carrier of property, of household goods or of passengers or a private motor carrier of property that is exempt from federal regulations, to operate in interstate commerce within this state, without having furnished the commission, in writing, such information as the commission may request and the payments of the fees. This act shall apply to all persons and motor vehicles engaged in interstate commerce only to the extent permitted by the constitution and laws of the United States.
History: L. 1931, ch. 236, § 9; L. 1933, ch. 229, § 11; L. 1993, ch. 263, § 5; L. 2001, ch. 92, § 11; L. 2003, ch. 124, § 23; L. 2008, ch. 45, § 3; L. 2021, ch. 77, § 10; July 1.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
"Motor Carrier Cases Before the State Corporation Commission," Larry E. Gregg, 48 J.B.A.K. 107, 108 (1979).
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Evidence defendant in damage action was contract carrier held properly admitted. Sponable v. Thomas, 139 K. 710, 715, 33 P.2d 721.
2. Nonliability of insurer of interstate carrier licensed and insured hereunder discussed. Harrison v. Travelers Mutual Cas. Co., 156 K. 492, 494, 134 P.2d 681.
3. Orders of administrative agencies to be reasonable must be supported by substantial evidence. Darnell Truck Service v. State Corporation Commission, 194 K. 96, 97, 397 P.2d 385.
4. Mentioned; summary judgment not available to interpret certificate of convenience and necessity. Pelican Transfer & Storage v. State Corporation Commission, 195 K. 76, 79, 402 P.2d 762.
5. 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.
6. 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.