14 C.F.R. § 300.1

Judicial standards of practice

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

Certain of DOT's functions involving aviation economic and enforcement proceedings are similar to those of a court, and parties to cases before DOT and those who represent such parties are expected—in fact and in appearance—to conduct themselves with honor and dignity as they would before a court. By the same token, any DOT employee or administrative law judge carrying out DOT's quasi-judicial functions and any DOT employee making recommendations or advising them are expected to conduct themselves with the same fidelity to appropriate standards of propriety that characterize a court and its staff. The standing and effectiveness of DOT in carrying out its quasi-judicial functions are in direct relation to the observance by DOT, DOT employees, and the parties and attorneys appearing before DOT of the highest standards of judicial and professional ethics. The rules of conduct set forth in this part are to be interpreted in light of those standards.

[Doc. No. 82, 50 FR 2380, Jan. 16, 1985, as amended at 60 FR 43528, Aug. 22, 1995]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 1990–1994 · leading case: Atx, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Transp., Int'l Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers, Intervenors, 41 F.3d 1522 (D.C. Cir. 1994).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Atx, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Transp., Int'l Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers, Intervenors, 41 F.3d 1522 (D.C. Cir. 1994). “9 Because the Department’s regulations expressly characterize certificate proceedings as quasi-judicial, 14 C.F.R. § 300.1 , 10 we *1528 must determine whether congressional interference occurred, or appeared to, to such an extent as to compromise the administrative process.”

Air Line Pilots Ass'n, Int'l v. United States Dep't of Transp., E. Air Lines, Inc., Intervenor, 899 F.2d 1230 (D.C. Cir. 1990). “…[himself] with the same fidelity to appropriate standards of propriety that characterize^] a court and its staff." 14 CFR § 300.1 .”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.