Udall v. Washington, Virginia and Maryland Coach Co., No. 21394

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
Writing for the CourtPRETTYMAN, Senior Circuit , and WRIGHT and TAMM, Circuit
Citation398 F.2d 765,130 US App. DC 171
PartiesStewart L. UDALL, Secretary of the Interior, et al., Appellants, v. WASHINGTON, VIRGINIA AND MARYLAND COACH COMPANY, Inc., Appellee, D. C. Transit System, Inc., Intervenor. UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. WASHINGTON, VIRGINIA AND MARYLAND COACH COMPANY, Inc., Appellee, D. C. Transit System, Inc., Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission, and Virginia State Corporation Commission, Intervenors.
Docket NumberNo. 21394,21395.
Decision Date12 June 1968

130 US App. DC 171, 398 F.2d 765 (1968)

Stewart L. UDALL, Secretary of the Interior, et al., Appellants,
v.
WASHINGTON, VIRGINIA AND MARYLAND COACH COMPANY, Inc., Appellee,
D. C. Transit System, Inc., Intervenor.

UNITED STATES of America, Appellant,
v.
WASHINGTON, VIRGINIA AND MARYLAND COACH COMPANY, Inc., Appellee,
D. C. Transit System, Inc., Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission, and Virginia State Corporation Commission, Intervenors.

Nos. 21394, 21395.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued May 15, 1968.

Decided June 12, 1968.

Petitions for Rehearing Denied August 5, 1968.


398 F.2d 766

Mr. A. Donald Mileur, Atty., Department of Justice, with whom Asst. Atty. Gen. Clyde O. Martz, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen. Harold S. Harrison, and Messrs. Roger P. Marquis and Thos. L. McKevitt, Attys., Department of Justice, were on the brief, for appellants. Mr. J. Edward Williams, Atty., Department of Justice, also entered an appearance for appellants.

Mr. Manuel J. Davis, Washington, D. C., for appellee and for intervenor D. C. Transit System, Inc.

Mr. Russell W. Cunningham, Arlington, Va., with whom Mr. Renn C. Fowler, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for intervenors Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission and Virginia State Corporation Commission.

Messrs. Wilmer S. Schantz, Jr. and Samuel M. Langerman, Washington, D. C., were on the brief for intervenor D. C. Transit System, Inc.

Before PRETTYMAN, Senior Circuit Judge, and WRIGHT and TAMM, Circuit Judges.

Petitions for Rehearing En Banc August 5, 1968.

J. SKELLY WRIGHT, Circuit Judge:

The facts of this appeal can be quickly stated. The United States owns and controls a strip of land which runs along the Potomac River on the Virginia side. Located on this strip is a multi-lane highway, known as the George Washington Memorial Parkway, which stretches from Mount Vernon at its southern end through the city of Alexandria, north through Arlington and Fairfax Counties, past Memorial and Key Bridges, to its northern end at the intersection of the Capital Beltway, Route 495. The Parkway

398 F.2d 767
is administered by the National Park Service of the Department of the Interior, whose Secretary has been charged by Congress to "make and publish such rules and regulations as he may deem necessary or proper for the use and management of the parks, monuments, and reservations under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service * *."1

Pursuant to this authority the Secretary has issued a series of regulations relating to the operation of commercial vehicles and common carriers on the George Washington Memorial Parkway. The regulations relevant to this appeal provide that passenger carrying vehicles for hire or compensation, other than licensed taxicabs and airport transport vehicles carrying fewer than 14 passengers, are permitted to use the Parkway only with a permit from the Regional Director of the Park Service and only under certain conditions. In essence, permits are granted for unlimited commercial bus service south of Memorial Bridge and, because of the condition of the road surface, no bus service is permitted from Memorial Bridge north to Key Bridge. North of Key Bridge sightseeing buses are allowed pursuant to a permit, as are buses operating nonstop to and from Dulles International and National Airports. But the Secretary's regulations forbid regular commuter bus service over the northern sector of the Parkway except for "direct nonstop passenger service from Key Bridge to a terminus at the Central Intelligence Agency Building at Langley, Virginia, and direct return, and (c) to provide limited direct nonstop passenger service from the interchange at Route 123 to a terminus at the Central Intelligence Agency Building at Langley, Virginia, and direct return."2

In 1961 Washington, Virginia and Maryland Coach Company, the appellee, obtained a permit from the Park Service to run its buses on the northern sector of the Parkway in a manner consistent with the Secretary's regulations. Then, apparently in 1962, it came to the attention of the Park Service that WV&M was not obeying the regulations in that, after making their runs to the CIA Building, its buses were continuing on into northern Virginia, collecting and discharging passengers, and then returning to the Parkway for the return trip south. This procedure violated its permit, which authorized only nonstop trips to the CIA Building and direct return.

After negotiation with WV&M, its permit was reissued with this requirement of direct return made even more explicit. Nevertheless, WV&M has consistently denied the validity of the regulations and has continued to violate their terms. Consequently the United States brought suit to restrain WV&M from continuing its unauthorized operation of a suburban commuter bus service on the Parkway between Key Bridge and the CIA Building. D. C. Transit System, Inc., the parent corporation of WV&M, and the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission3 intervened as defendants.

398 F.2d 768
In answer to the suit, WV&M denied the validity of the regulations and counterclaimed for a return of fees paid to the Park Service. In a separate action in which D. C. Transit and WMATC joined as plaintiffs, it sued the Secretary of the Interior to challenge the validity of his regulations

After the consolidation and trial of these cases the District Court ruled that WV&M was not entitled to refund of the $2,284 in fees which it had paid up to the time of trial to use the Parkway. It also denied the claim of the United States for injunctive and declaratory relief, ruling that the Secretary's regulations were "unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory, and therefore invalid, insofar as they do not permit sub-urban commuter buses owned by W. V. & M. * * * to operate without limitation on the Parkway above the Key Bridge * * *." 268 F.Supp. at 51. We affirm this decision with respect to the validity of the fees exacted, but reverse the denial of injunctive and declaratory relief.

In essence the trial judge felt that the regulations were discriminatory and invalid for two reasons: first, because they unreasonably allow unlimited bus service south of Memorial Bridge while limiting such service north of the Bridge4; and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
49 practice notes
  • Venetian Casino Resort v. E.E.O.C., No. CIV. 00-2980 RJL.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • September 29, 2006
    ...of overcoming this presumption. Envtl. Def. Fund, Inc., 657 F.2d at 283 n. 28;.Udall v. Washington, Virginia, and Maryland Coach Co., 398 F.2d 765, 769 (D.C.Cir. 1968). The standard is a narrow one that forbids a court from substituting its own judgment for that of the agency. Citizens to P......
  • American Federation of Government Emp. v. Hoffmann, Civ. A. No. 75-G-0652-NE.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Alabama
    • August 13, 1976
    ...421 U.S. 560, 95 S.Ct. 1851, 44 L.Ed.2d 377 (1975); Udall v. Washington, Virginia, Maryland Coach Company, 130 U.S.App.D.C. 171, 398 F.2d 765 (1965). So long as defendants did not act arbitrarily and capriciously in the exercise of their authority to proceed with the development of these BM......
  • HART AND MILLER, ETC. v. CORPS OF ENGINEERS, ETC., Civ. No. HM77-973.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Maryland)
    • December 23, 1980
    ...be left to the agency making the policy decisions. See Udall v. Washington, Virginia and Maryland Coach Company, 130 U.S.App.D.C. 171, 398 F.2d 765, 769 (1968), cert. den., 393 U.S. 1017, 89 S.Ct. 620, 21 L.Ed.2d 561 The Corps' E.I.S. discusses the likely effect of construction of the Hart ......
  • US v. Layne, No. P6108935/UP24.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. United States District Court of Utah
    • March 25, 1994
    ...upset an action of the Secretary unless his action is arbitrary or beyond his authority. Udall v. Washington, Va. & Md. Coach Co., 398 F.2d 765 (D.C.Cir.1968). The Secretary's regulations have the force of law United States v. Petersen, 91 F.Supp. 209 (S.D.Cal.1950) (regulation of the sale ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
49 cases
  • Venetian Casino Resort v. E.E.O.C., No. CIV. 00-2980 RJL.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • September 29, 2006
    ...of overcoming this presumption. Envtl. Def. Fund, Inc., 657 F.2d at 283 n. 28;.Udall v. Washington, Virginia, and Maryland Coach Co., 398 F.2d 765, 769 (D.C.Cir. 1968). The standard is a narrow one that forbids a court from substituting its own judgment for that of the agency. Citizens to P......
  • American Federation of Government Emp. v. Hoffmann, Civ. A. No. 75-G-0652-NE.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Alabama
    • August 13, 1976
    ...421 U.S. 560, 95 S.Ct. 1851, 44 L.Ed.2d 377 (1975); Udall v. Washington, Virginia, Maryland Coach Company, 130 U.S.App.D.C. 171, 398 F.2d 765 (1965). So long as defendants did not act arbitrarily and capriciously in the exercise of their authority to proceed with the development of these BM......
  • HART AND MILLER, ETC. v. CORPS OF ENGINEERS, ETC., Civ. No. HM77-973.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Maryland)
    • December 23, 1980
    ...be left to the agency making the policy decisions. See Udall v. Washington, Virginia and Maryland Coach Company, 130 U.S.App.D.C. 171, 398 F.2d 765, 769 (1968), cert. den., 393 U.S. 1017, 89 S.Ct. 620, 21 L.Ed.2d 561 The Corps' E.I.S. discusses the likely effect of construction of the Hart ......
  • US v. Layne, No. P6108935/UP24.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. United States District Court of Utah
    • March 25, 1994
    ...upset an action of the Secretary unless his action is arbitrary or beyond his authority. Udall v. Washington, Va. & Md. Coach Co., 398 F.2d 765 (D.C.Cir.1968). The Secretary's regulations have the force of law United States v. Petersen, 91 F.Supp. 209 (S.D.Cal.1950) (regulation of the sale ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT