C.F.R. » Title 29 » PART 18—RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS BEFORE THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES › Subpart A—General

29 C.F.R. § 18.40

Notice of hearing

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

(a) In general. Except when the hearing is scheduled by calendar call, the judge must notify the parties of the hearing's date, time, and place at least 14 days before the hearing. The notice is sent by regular, first-class mail, unless the judge determines that circumstances require service by certified mail or other means. The parties may agree to waive the 14-day notice for the hearing.

(b) Date, time, and place. The judge must consider the convenience and necessity of the parties and the witnesses in selecting the date, time, and place of the hearing.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 2002–2010 · leading case: Allen v. Admin. Review Bd., 514 F.3d 468 (5th Cir. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Allen v. Admin. Review Bd., 514 F.3d 468 (5th Cir. 2008). “The ALJ determined that the Petitioners' beliefs were not objectively reasonable based on the evidence presented at the hearing.”
Bettner v. Admin. Review Bd., 539 F.3d 613 (7th Cir. 2008). · cites it 3× “Before the ALJ, Crete filed a motion for summary decision under 29 C.F.R. § 18.40 . On October 28, 2005, the ALJ issued a recommendation to grant Crete’s motion for summary decision.”
Hasan v. United States Dep't of Labor, 545 F.3d 248 (3rd Cir. 2008). “Analysis Summary decision may be granted “if the pleadings, affidavits, material obtained by discovery or otherwise, or matters officially noticed show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that a party is entitled to summary decision.”
Michael Gale v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 384 F. App'x 926 (11th Cir. 2010). “See 29 C.F.R. § 18.40 (d) (2010). Thus, summary decision is warranted if the pleadings and other materials in the record "show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact.”
Doyle v. U.S. Sec'y of Labor, 285 F.3d 243 (3rd Cir. 2002). “Hydro and- Doyle submitted a stipulated record of fact and motions for summary decision pursuant to 29 C.F.R. §§ 18.40 and 18.41. On July 11, 1989, the administrative law judge issued his Recommended Decision and Order Granting Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment indicating…”
Bettner, William v. LABR (7th Cir. 2008). · cites it 3× “Before the ALJ, Crete filed a motion for summary deci- sion under 29 C.F.R. § 18.40 . On October 28, 2005, the ALJ issued a recommendation to grant Crete’s motion for summary decision.”
Hasan v. Sec'y Labor (3rd Cir. 2008). “” 29 C.F.R. § 18.40 (d). We will overturn the ARB’s decision only if it is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law.”
Hasan v. Sec'y Labor (3rd Cir. 2008). “” 29 C.F.R. § 18.40 (d). We will overturn the ARB’s decision only if it is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law.”
Allen v. Admin. Review Bd., 514 F.3d 456 (5th Cir. 2008). “The ALJ determined that the Petitioners’ beliefs were not objectively reasonable based on the evidence presented at the hearing.”
Gattegno v. Admin. Review Bd., 353 F. App'x 498 (2d Cir. 2009). “” 29 C.F.R. § 18.40 (d). This standard is analogous to the rules governing motions for summary judgment in federal court.”
Gattegno v. Admin. Review Bd., 353 F. App'x 498 (2d Cir. 2009). “” 29 C.F.R. § 18.40 (d). This standard is analogous to the rules governing motions for summary judgment in federal court.”
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.