14 C.F.R. § 302.9

Continuances and extensions of time

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

(a) Whenever a party has the right or obligation to take action within a period prescribed by this part, by a notice given thereunder, or by an order or regulation, the DOT decisionmaker or the administrative law judge assigned to the proceeding, as appropriate, may:

(1) Before the expiration of the prescribed period, with or without notice, extend such period, or

(2) Upon motion, permit the act to be done after the expiration of the specified period, where good cause for the failure to act on time is clearly shown.

(b) Except where an administrative law judge has been assigned to a proceeding, requests for continuance or extensions of time, as described in paragraph (a) of this section, shall be directed to the DOT decisionmaker. Requests for continuances and extensions of time may be directed to the Chief Administrative Law Judge in the absence of the administrative law judge assigned to the proceeding.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 1961–1963 · leading case: Davis & Randall, Inc. v. United States, 219 F. Supp. 673 (W.D.N.Y. 1963).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Davis & Randall, Inc. v. United States, 219 F. Supp. 673 (W.D.N.Y. 1963). · cites it 2× “Rules of Practice, 14 C.F.R. § 302.9 (1952). [7] Pick-Up and Delivery in Official Territory, 218 I.”

Great Lakes Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Bd. of the United States, 291 F.2d 354 (9th Cir. 1961). “” 14 C.F.R. § 302.9 (1956). Petitioners also call attention to the fact that rule 19(g) was subsequently amended to provide that “No application will be required for the attendance of Board personnel or the production of records in their custody when requested by a Compliance…”

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.