Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Reliable Limousine and Bus Service v. WMATC, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    Reliable Limousine and Bus Service, LLC and Reliable Bus, LLC petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to review a Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission order denying without prejudice their applications for certificates of authority. The court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so it affirmed the Commission's order. The court also dispensed with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid in the decision.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2014-02-05 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 13-1735

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Reliable Limousine and Bus Service, LLC and Reliable Bus, LLC petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to review a Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission order denying without prejudice their applications for certificates of authority. The court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so it affirmed the Commission's order. The court also dispensed with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid in the decision.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    6 views2 pages

    Reliable Limousine and Bus Service v. WMATC, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Reliable Limousine and Bus Service, LLC and Reliable Bus, LLC petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to review a Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission order denying without prejudice their applications for certificates of authority. The court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so it affirmed the Commission's order. The court also dispensed with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid in the decision.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 13-1735

    RELIABLE LIMOUSINE AND BUS SERVICE, LLC; RELIABLE BUS, LLC,


    Petitioners,
    v.
    WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT COMMISSION,
    Respondent.

    On Petition for Review


    Metropolitan Area Transit
    184)

    Submitted:

    January 16, 2014

    of an Order of the Washington


    Commission.
    (AP-2012-183; AP-2012-

    Decided:

    February 5, 2014

    Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Elyse L. Strickland, Maurice B. VerStandig, OFFIT KURMAN, PA,


    Bethesda, Maryland, for Petitioners.
    Jeffrey M. Lehmann,
    William S. Morrow, Jr., WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT
    COMMISSION, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Respondent.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Reliable Limousine and Bus Service, LLC, and Reliable
    Bus,

    LLC,

    petition

    Metropolitan

    Area

    this

    court

    Transit

    for

    Commission

    review

    of

    order

    Washington

    denying,

    without

    prejudice, their applications for certificates of authority.


    have

    reviewed

    Accordingly,

    we

    the

    record

    affirm

    the

    and

    find

    no

    Commissions

    reversible

    order.

    See

    We

    error.
    In

    re:

    Reliable Limousine & Bus Serv., LLC, Nos. AP-2012-183, AP-2012184, Order No. 13,775 (WMATC Feb. 28, 2013).
    oral

    argument

    adequately

    because

    presented

    in

    the
    the

    facts

    and

    materials

    legal
    before

    We dispense with
    contentions
    this

    court

    are
    and

    argument would not aid the decisional process.


    AFFIRMED

    You might also like