U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1953

Washington, Marlboro & Annapolis Motor Lines, Inc. v. Public Utilities Commission of District of Columbia

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided July 23, 1953 · Miller, Bazelon, Washington

206 F.2d 490; 93 U.S. App. D.C. 63; 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 2774 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. James P. Donovan, Washington, D. C., for appellant., Mr. Lloyd B. Harris on, Counsel for Public Utilities Commission of District of Columbia, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Vernon E. West, General Counsel, Washington, D. C., was on the brief for appellee Public Utilities Commission of District of Columbia., Mr. W. V. T. Justis, Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Edmund L. Jones, F. Gloyd Await, Raymond Sparks and F. Keith Kelly, Washington, D. C., were on the brief for appellee Capital Transit Co.

Cases that cite this one

4 later published cases cite this decision.

Leonard S. Goodman v. Public Service Commission of the District of Columbia (D.C. Cir. 1974)
Washington Gas Light Co. v. Public Service Commission (D.C. 1982)
Watergate Improvement Associates v. Public Service Commission (D.C. 1974)
O'Kon v. Roland (District Court, S.D. New York 1965)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This case relates to passenger bus service offered by competing companies in the Southeast area of Washington. The appellant, Washington, Marlboro and Annapolis Motor Lines, Inc., a carrier, challenges certain decisions as to routes made by the Public Utilities Commission of the District of Columbia. It appeals from a judgment by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia upholding the Commission after protracted proceedings, whose history is set forth in opinions of the District Court dated April 13, 1950, 114 F.Supp. 321, and July 17, 1952, 114 F.Supp. 328. In the opinion of July 17, 1952, Judge McLaughlin carefully reviews the facts and the law. Our own study of the record and the briefs has satisfied us of the correctness of the views there expressed. 1

Affirmed.

. On this appeal, appellant contends for the first time that the notice of hearing on remand (see 1950, 114 F.Supp. 321) was defective* and that a vital finding then made was unsupported in the record. We do not consider these points, since they were not raised below. See United States v. Hoffman, 1948, 335 U.S. 77, 79, 68 S.Ct.1413, 92 L.Ed. 1830.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.