Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. LANDMARK SERVS.

June 30, 1976

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al., Plaintiffs, and WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY et al., Intervenors,
v.
LANDMARK SERVICES, INC., Defendant; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendant



The opinion of the court was delivered by: SIRICA

 The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority and the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission ("WMATC") have been allowed to intervene to support the plaintiffs.

 Landmark, the defendant, has contracted with the Secretary of the Interior ("Secretary") to provide the interpretive transportation service at issue in this case. Its sole defense has been that 40 U.S.C. § 804 (Supp. 1974) gives exclusive authority to the Secretary to regulate this service and that therefore the firm is immune from the enforcement of these local regulations against it.

 The second suit, United States v. District of Columbia, C.A. No. 75-2148, was brought because of the first suit. Its entire purpose and effect have been to make the federal government an intervenor-defendant in that suit; therefore, the Court will treat the United States as such and decide the matter accordingly. *fn1"

 I.

 The relevant facts are not in dispute. The federal government and Landmark on one side and the D.C. government on the other have each sought judgment in their favor. However, before addressing the merits of these motions, the Court must first decide whether the issues raised are still ripe for adjudication. On January 27, 1976, while both these suits were pending, the acting director of the National Capital Parks did give public notice that the service in controversy here had been suspended because relatively few people were using it. 41 Fed. Reg. 3887-88 (1976). But the director also said at that time that he intends to begin service again if the demand becomes great enough. Since the number of visitors coming to the Washington area generally increases in the spring and summer, and since the number is especially likely to increase substantially in this Bicentennial year, the Court concludes that, although an injunction may no longer be appropriate, the controversy still has sufficient life to support jurisdiction for purposes of a declaratory judgment. Therefore, the Court must consider the merits of the motions made.

 II.

 The District of Columbia claims that Landmark must comply with the following D.C. regulations if it is to operate interpretive transportation service from the Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium parking lot to the Mall and back again:

 (1) D.C. Code § 40-102 (1973) (vehicle registration);

 (2) D.C. Code § 40-201 et seq. (1973) (vehicle inspection);

 (3) D.C. Code § 47-2338 (1973) (licensing of tour guides);

 (4) D.C. Code § 29-933 (1973) (certification and filing of annual reports as a foreign corporation).

 Landmark admits that ordinarily it would have to comply with these regulations. Its argument is that its contract with the Secretary was authorized by 40 U.S.C. § 804 (Supp. 1974) and that this provision specifically exempts the operator of the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.