28 C.F.R. § 76.15

Ex parte communications

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

(a) Generally. The Judge shall not consult with any party, attorney or person (except persons in the office of the Judge) on any legal or factual issue unless upon notice and opportunity for all parties to participate. No party or attorney representing a party shall communicate in any instance with the Judge on any matter at issue in a case, unless notice and opportunity has been afforded for the other party to participate. This provision does not prohibit a party or attorney from inquiring about the status of a case or asking questions concerning administrative functions or procedures.

(b) Sanctions. A party or participant who makes a prohibited ex parte communication, or who encourages or solicits another to make any such communication, may be subject to any appropriate sanctions. An attorney who makes a prohibited ex parte communication, or who encourages or solicits another to make any such communication, may be subject to sanctions, including, but not limited to, exclusion from the proceedings.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2020–2025 · leading case: Marvin-Levoid Goss v. Joseph A. Alvesteffer (Tex. App. 2023).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Marvin-Levoid Goss v. Joseph A. Alvesteffer (Tex. App. 2023). “asserts that (1) Alvesteffer failed to give Goss seven days to respond to the notice to vacate before filing suit, (2) Alvesteffer evicted him for unpaid rent even though Alvesteffer had agreed to accept less rent that month, (3) Alvesteffer 3 For example, Goss argues in his…”

Greco v. Grewal (D.N.J. 2020). “28 C.F.R. § 76.15 (a) (“No party or attorney representing a party shall communicate in any instance with the Judge on any matter at issue in a case, unless notice and opportunity has been afforded for the other party to participate.”

Katsigianis v. Mahoning Cnty. Mun. Corp. (N.D. Ohio 2025). “§ 1983; 28 C.F.R. § 76.15 ; lack of jurisdiction; administrative court limitation; fraudulent judicial actions; notices of fault for failure to respond to “commercial affidavit”; and “county policy/practice/custom.”

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.