Wash. Rev. Code » Title 81 · Chapter 81.80
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 81.80.070 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) A common carrier, contract carrier, or temporary carrier shall not operate for the transportation of property for compensation in this state without first obtaining from the commission a permit for such operation.
(2) The commission shall issue a common carrier permit to any qualified applicant if it is found the applicant is fit, willing, and able to perform the service and conform to the provisions of this chapter and the rules and regulations of the commission.
(3) Before a permit is issued, the commission shall require the applicant to establish safety fitness and proof of minimum financial responsibility as provided in this chapter.
[ 2009 c 94 s 3; 2007 c 234 s 72; 1999 c 79 s 1; 1963 c 242 s 1; 1961 c 14 s 81.80.070. Prior: 1953 c 95 s 17; 1947 c 264 s 2; 1941 c 163 s 1; 1937 c 166 s 6; 1935 c 184 s 5; Rem. Supp. 1947 s 6382-5.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases, 1953–2020 · leading case: State v. Carr, 645 P.2d 1098 (Wash. 1982).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Carr, 645 P.2d 1098 (Wash. 1982). · cites it 13× “Rosengreen cited Carr with a violation of RCW 81.80.070 on the standard Washington uniform complaint/citation and court docket form.”
Inland Empire Distrib. Sys., Inc. v. Utils. & Transp. Comm'n, 770 P.2d 624 (Wash. 1989). · cites it 3× “010(6) and denied the application for a common carrier permit pursuant to RCW 81.80.070. The protest of Bekins Moving and Storage was dismissed for failure to appear.”
Farm Supply Distributors, Inc. v. Washington Utils. & Transp. Comm'n, 518 P.2d 1237 (Wash. 1974). · cites it 3× “) Thus, we hold that if it is determined that Farm Supply is a “contract carrier,” the Commission must consider the proffered evidence, admittedly rejected, on the subject of public interest as required by RCW 81.80.070. 3 In the final analysis, on remand the Commission must, in…”
Herrett Trucking Co. v. Washington Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 377 P.2d 871 (Wash. 1963). · cites it 2× “Milwaukee urges that when permit rights are dormant, the Commission must treat the application for transfer as one for a new permit, or for an extension of an existing permit pursuant to RCW 81.80.070. This would require, as a showing of public need, that the applicant has…”
Black Ball Freight Serv., Inc. v. Washington Utils. & Transp. Comm'n, 447 P.2d 597 (Wash. 1968). · cites it 2× “This litigation is the first to come to this court concerning the authority vested in the WUTC by RCW 81.80.070 as amended in 1963. Prior to 1963, RCW 81.”
Washington Utils. & Transp. Comm'n v. United Cartage, Inc., 621 P.2d 217 (Wash. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 5× “RCW 81.80.070, .400. Unless exempted from regulation, a carrier may not carry freight by motor vehicle for compensation without first obtaining a permit from the Commission, and a permit holder may not provide a service that exceeds the scope of its permit.”
Black Ball Freight Serv. v. Washington Utils. & Transp. Comm'n, 463 P.2d 169 (Wash. 1969). · cites it 3× “It is argued that, in effect, the Commission has in this case authorized a totally new and different service which must therefore meet the “public convenience and necessity” test of RCW 81.80.070. 7 No cases are citpd by the appellants, and we find none, where there has been a…”
N. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Washington Utils. & Transp. Comm'n, 416 P.2d 337 (Wash. 1966). · cites it 2× “The protestants (respondents) relied on RCW 81.80.070 and the commission’s Rule 5(c) pertaining to qualifications for permits for carriers.”
City Sanitary Serv., Inc. v. Washington Utils. & Transp. Comm'n, 393 P.2d 952 (Wash. 1964). “070, pertaining to the qualifications for a common or contract carrier permit, amply demonstrates that the legislature intended to and did recognize a distinction between those engaged in the business of garbage and refuse collection under a common or contract carrier permit…”
State ex rel. Bremerton Transfer & Storage Co. v. Washington Utils. & Transp. Comm'n, 410 P.2d 602 (Wash. 1966). · cites it 4× “RCW 81.80.070 governs the application for extension of common carrier permits.”
N. Pac. Transp. Co. v. Washington Utils. & Transp. Comm'n, 418 P.2d 735 (Wash. 1966). “” RCW 81.80.070 then read as follows: Nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed to confer upon any person or persons the exclusive right or privilege of transporting property for compensation over the public highways of the state, but the commission may deny an…”
Black Ball Freight Serv. v. United States, 266 F. Supp. 287 (W.D. Wash. 1967). “)” The pertinent WPSC regulations and the record of their application, as stated in the briefs, negative defendants’ contention that in practice the Commission acted as though mandatorily bound to give consideration to all factors pertinent to “necessity” before issuing a permit.”
Show all 19 citing cases →
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.