Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 81.68.030 (2026)

Regulation by commission

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The commission is vested with power and authority, and it is its duty to supervise and regulate every auto transportation company in this state as provided in this section. Under this authority, it shall for each auto transportation company:

(1) Fix, alter, and amend just, fair, reasonable, and sufficient rates, fares, charges, classifications, rules, and regulations;

(2) Regulate the accounts, service, and safety of operations;

(3) Require the filing of annual and other reports and of other data;

(4) Supervise and regulate the companies in all other matters affecting the relationship between such companies and the traveling and shipping public;

(5) By general order or otherwise, prescribe rules and regulations in conformity with this chapter, applicable to any and all such companies, and within such limits make orders.

The commission may, at any time, by its order duly entered after notice to the holder of any certificate under this chapter, and an opportunity for a hearing, at which it shall be proven that the holder willfully violates or refuses to observe any of the commission's proper orders, rules, or regulations, suspend, revoke, alter, or amend any certificate issued under the provisions of this chapter, but the holder of the certificate has all the rights of rehearing, review, and appeal as to the order of the commission as is provided for in chapter 34.05 RCW.

[ 2007 c 234 s 96; 2005 c 121 s 2; 1989 c 163 s 4; 1984 c 166 s 4; 1961 c 14 s 81.68.030. Prior: 1921 c 111 s 3; RRS s 6389.]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1979–2023 · leading case: Port of Seattle v. Washington Utils. & Transp. Comm'n, 597 P.2d 383 (Wash. 1979).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Port of Seattle v. Washington Utils. & Transp. Comm'n, 597 P.2d 383 (Wash. 1979). · cites it 2× “2 The Port contended that this requirement is not to be confused with the standard set out in RCW 81.68.030, 3 which the Port contends provides that an existing certificate holder may block revocation of a certificate by a mere showing of willingness to provide the service.”

Ride the Ducks Seattle LLC v. Ride the Ducks Int'l LLC (W.D. Wash. 2023). “International concedes that Seattle was a common carrier 18 subject to a variety of regulations, including, for example RCW 81.68.030. (Resp. at 6; see also 19 Reply at 4 (identifying RCW 49.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.