Holiday Tours, Inc. v. WASHINGTON MET. AREA TRANSIT COM'N, 20140.
| Decision Date | 09 January 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 20140.,20140. |
| Citation | 372 F.2d 401,125 US App. DC 336 |
| Parties | HOLIDAY TOURS, INC., Petitioner, v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT COMMISSION, Respondent, Alexandria, Barcroft, and Washington Transit Company and the Gray Line, Inc., Washington, Virginia and Maryland Coach Company, Inc., of Arlington, Virginia and D. C. Transit System, Inc., of Washington, D. C., Intervenors. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Mr. Leonard A. Jaskiewicz, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. J. William Cain, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for petitioner.
Mr. Russell W. Cunningham, Arlington, Va., for respondent.
Mr. S. Harrison Kahn, Washington, D. C., who was on the brief for intervenors Alexandria, Barcroft and Washington Transit Co. and Gray Line, Inc., argued for all intervenors.
Messrs. Harold Smith and Manuel J. Davis, Washington, D. C., were on the brief for intervenors D. C. Transit System, Inc., and Washington, Virginia & Maryland Coach Co., Inc. Mr. Samuel M. Langerman, Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for intervenors D. C. Transit System, Inc., and Washington, Virginia & Maryland Coach Co., Inc.
Before BURGER, WRIGHT and TAMM, Circuit Judges.
Subsequent to our remand of this case to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission,1 the Commission, respondent here, re-opened the record and set the case for further hearing. In the post-remand proceedings, the Commission, treating the petitioner's "grandfather application"2 as a de novo request, heard additional testimony and received additional exhibits to supplement the record originally before the Commission. Petitioner and protestant-intervenors were afforded an opportunity to "present anything at all in reference to these particular findings." Acting on the entire record, the Commission concluded that petitioner was not bona fide engaged in the transportation of passengers in motor vehicles with a seating capacity in excess of eight passengers, exclusive of the driver, on or before March 22, 1961. Upon this finding, the Commission denied petitioner's application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity. We affirm.
The Commission concluded that the record established petitioner's business to be that of operating a sightseeing business by limousine and, as such, not transportation by bus within the terms of the grandfather clause of the Compact. The Commission reviewed the evidence before...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Card v. Principal Life Ins. Co.
-
Conax Florida Corp. v. United States, Civ. A. No. 85-3111.
...the criteria required for the granting of a preliminary injunction by this Court have been met. Holiday Tours, Inc. v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 372 F.2d 401 (D.C.Cir.1967); Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Association v. Federal Power Commission, 259 F.2d 921 Because the on......
-
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission v. Holiday Tours, Inc., 77-1379
...259 F.2d 921 (1958). On the merits, this appeal turns on the proper interpretation of Holiday Tours, Inc. v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission, 125 U.S.App.D.C. 336, 372 F.2d 401 (1967), in which we affirmed the Commission's ruling that Holiday Tours was not entitled to a cert......
-
WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA v. Holiday Tours, Inc., Civ. A. No. 76-1500.
...purposes, and that Defendant is not entitled to any of the exceptions to the Compact. See Holiday Tours, Inc. v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Commission, 372 F.2d 401 (D.C. Cir. 1967). Since 1967 WMATC has attempted to enforce the Compact's provisions against Defendant HT,1 a......