14 C.F.R. § 61.59
[Reserved]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases, 1976–2018 · leading case: Eldon C. Hart v. John L. McLucas Adm'r, Fed. Aviation Admin., & Nat'l Transp. Saf. Bd., 535 F.2d 516 (9th Cir. 1976).
Eldon C. Hart v. John L. McLucas Adm'r, Fed. Aviation Admin., & Nat'l Transp. Saf. Bd., 535 F.2d 516 (9th Cir. 1976). “On these facts, the NTSB held that Hart had violated 14 C.F.R. § 61.59 (a)(2) which prohibits the making of a “fraudulent or intentionally false entry” in specified aviation records.”
Michael Huerta v. Jody Ducote, 792 F.3d 144 (D.C. Cir. 2015). “The ALJ reasoned that the written flight record that Ducote prepared for the FAA was not a “material” filing, and thus could not form the basis of an intentional 8 falsification charge under 14 C.F.R. § 61.59 (a).3 In the ALJ’s view, whether Ducote just “missed some or maybe…”
Coghlan v. Nat'l Transp. Saf. Bd., 470 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 2006). “Thus, the FAA concluded, Coghlan violated 14 C.F.R. § 61.59 (a)(1) and (2), and lacked the qualifications necessary to be the holder of an ATP certificate.”
Edward T. Jeszka v. NTSB, 392 F. App'x 779 (11th Cir. 2010). “PER CURIAM: On April 17, 2009, the Federal Aviation Administration issued emergency orders finding that petitioners Edward Jeszka and Raymond Ledbetter had intentionally falsified required records, in violation of 14 C.F.R. § 61.59 (a)(2). The FAA’s orders revoked the airman…”
United States v. Daniel Bruce Bonallo, 858 F.2d 1427 (9th Cir. 1988). “Because we find no authority suggesting that the misrepresentation must precede the transfer of money or property *1434 either in fraud cases generally or under subsection 1344(a)(1) specifically, and because we think that Congress contemplated no such requirement, we reject…”
David John Erickson v. Nat'l Transp. Saf. Bd., & Donald D. Engen, Adm'r, Fed. Aviation Admin., 758 F.2d 285 (8th Cir. 1985). “In the present case Erickson was found to have violated 14 C.F.R. § 61.59 (a)(2) (1983), which provides that “[N]o person may make or cause to be made * * * [a]ny fraudulent or intentionally false entry in any logbook, record, or report that is required to be kept, made, or…”
Donald E. Cassis v. J. Lynn Helms, Adm'r, Fed. Aviation Admin., 737 F.2d 545 (6th Cir. 1984). “The Board reasoned that the false entries were material because: (1) each entry could have influenced the FAA inspector to find that the 1500 hour requirement had been satisfied and (2) Cassis’ logbook is a permanent record of flight experience that may be used to demonstrate…”
Paul Joseph Janka Michael E. Newman v. Dep't of Transp., Nat'l Transp. Saf. Bd. Fed. Aviation Admin., 925 F.2d 1147 (9th Cir. 1991). “See 14 C.F.R. § 61.59 (1989). As a result of the violations, the *1149 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Administrator revoked Janka’s commercial pilot and flight instructor certificates, and Newman’s private pilot certificate.”
Rafael E. Chirino v. Nat'l Transp. Saf. Bd. & Sec'y of Transp., 849 F.2d 1525 (D.C. Cir. 1988). “14 C.F.R. § 61.59 (a) provides, in part, as follows: (a) No person may make or cause to be made— (1) Any fraudulent or intentionally false statement on any application for a certifícate, rating, or duplicate thereof, issued under this part; (2) Any fraudulent or intentionally…”
Cooper v. Nat'l Transp. Saf. Bd., 660 F.3d 476 (D.C. Cir. 2011). “At issue in Hart was 14 C.F.R. § 61.59 (a)(2), which provides: No person may make or cause to be made: .”
James Kenneth Gallagher v. Nat'l Transp. Saf. Bd. & Adm'r, Fed. Aviation Admin., 953 F.2d 1214 (10th Cir. 1992). “That case involved appeals by seven pilots whose airman certificates were revoked by FAA emergency orders for alleged false and fraudulent entries in official records in violation of 14 C.F.R. § 61.59 (a)(2). The court held that the 60-day time requirement was not jurisdictional…”
McCarthney v. Busey, 954 F.2d 1147 (6th Cir. 1992). “59(a)(2) of the Federal Aviation Regulations, 14 C.F.R. § 61.59 (a)(2). 1 These orders reflected complaints filed under rules of practice of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) against each of the petitioners.”
— 14 C.F.R. § 61.59(a) — 1 case
Errol H. Van Eaton v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 108 F.3d 1387 (9th Cir. 1997).
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.