Lexplug logoLexplug

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission v. Holiday Tours, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
559 F.2d 841 (1977)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A court may grant a stay pending appeal if the movant demonstrates a substantial case on the merits and that the balance of equities tips decidedly in its favor, without needing to show a mathematical probability of success.


Facts:

  • Holiday Tours, Inc. operated a sightseeing business primarily using limousines.
  • A prior court decision affirmed a regulatory commission's denial of a 'grandfather' certificate to Holiday Tours but noted the commission's concession that Holiday Tours could continue operating by using limousines or renting buses from licensed operators.
  • Relying on this language, Holiday Tours transformed its business model from a primarily limousine-based service to a primarily bus-based service, using rented buses.
  • The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission (the Commission) interpreted the prior court decision to mean that Holiday Tours could only rent buses as an occasional adjunct to its primary limousine business, not as its main mode of operation.
  • This disagreement over the scope of Holiday Tours' permitted operations led to a legal dispute between Holiday Tours and the Commission.

Procedural Posture:

  • The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission sued Holiday Tours, Inc. in the U.S. District Court.
  • The District Court granted a permanent injunction in favor of the Commission, prohibiting Holiday Tours from operating its bus tour service.
  • On motion by Holiday Tours, the District Court stayed its own injunction pending Holiday Tours' appeal.
  • The Commission, as the appellee, filed a motion in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to vacate the District Court's stay.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a party seeking a stay pending appeal need to demonstrate a probability of success on the merits, or is a substantial case on the merits sufficient when the balance of equities—considering irreparable harm to the movant, harm to other parties, and the public interest—strongly favors granting the stay?


Opinions:

Majority - Leventhal, Circuit Judge

No. A party seeking a stay pending appeal does not need to show a probability of success on the merits; a substantial case is sufficient when the balance of equities weighs heavily in the movant's favor. The court refines the four-factor test from Virginia Petroleum Jobbers, treating it not as a rigid checklist but as a sliding scale. The four factors are: (1) the likelihood of success on the merits, (2) irreparable harm to the movant without the stay, (3) substantial harm to other parties if the stay is issued, and (4) the public interest. The court reasons that a strict 'probability' requirement for the first factor can lead to harsh results and that a strong showing on the other three factors can compensate for a lesser showing of likely success. In this case, the balance of equities strongly favors Holiday Tours: it would suffer irreparable harm (destruction of its business) without a stay, while the harm to the Commission or competitors is unsubstantiated, and the public interest favors maintaining the status quo while a serious legal question is resolved. Therefore, because Holiday Tours presented a 'substantial case on the merits,' the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the stay, even if Holiday Tours' ultimate success was not a probability.



Analysis:

This decision significantly modifies the standard for granting preliminary injunctions and stays pending appeal in the D.C. Circuit and has influenced other jurisdictions. It formally adopts a 'sliding scale' approach, making the four-factor test more flexible by allowing the factors to be balanced against one another. By lowering the threshold for the 'likelihood of success' prong from a 'probability' to a 'substantial case' when the balance of hardships tips sharply in the movant's favor, the case makes it easier for parties facing catastrophic harm to obtain interim relief while they litigate novel or difficult legal questions.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission v. Holiday Tours, Inc. (1977) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission v. Holiday Tours, Inc.