The District Court granted P a permanent injunction restraining D from operating a motor coach sightseeing service without a certificate of public convenience and necessity. On D's motion, the District Court stayed its injunction pending appeal. D motioned to vacate the District Court’s stay. Also, P conceded that D may continue to operate in the future as a sightseeing business by limousine, as well as with buses and drivers supplied by licensed bus operators. In a prior case, we affirmed P's ruling that D was not entitled to a certificate of public convenience and necessity under the 'grandfather clause' of the pertinent statute. At the time of that decision, D was primarily a limousine tour service. D has recently transformed itself into primarily a bus tour service. D contends that this conversion is authorized by the quoted language so long as the buses are rented from licensed operators rather than owned by D itself. P argues that the language is merely the court's observation that no certificate is required if D occasionally rents buses to accommodate additional customers as an adjunct to its primary business of providing limousine tours. The District Court adopted P's interpretation but stayed the permanent injunction pending appeal.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.