29 C.F.R. § 18.42
Expedited proceedings
A party may move to expedite the proceeding. The motion must demonstrate the specific harm that would result if the proceeding is not expedited. If the motion is granted, the formal hearing ordinarily will not be scheduled with less than 7 days notice to the parties, unless all parties consent to an earlier hearing.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases, 1985–2002 · leading case: Midwest Farmworker Emp. & Training, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Labor, Admin. Review Bd., 200 F.3d 1198 (8th Cir. 2000).
Midwest Farmworker Emp. & Training, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Labor, Admin. Review Bd., 200 F.3d 1198 (8th Cir. 2000). “3d at 485, we, too, emphasized the availability of expedited review procedures in rejecting an argument that an administrative remedy lapsed too soon to be litigated. Midwest does not contend that it has pursued expedited procedures in this case.”
Maine v. United States Dep't of Labor, 770 F.2d 236 (1st Cir. 1985). “Although this time was not sufficient for Maine Labor in the case now before us, Maine Labor apparently failed to seek expedited review of its case, as it could have done under available DOL regulations and procedures.”
United Urban Indian Council, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Labor, 31 F. App'x 627 (10th Cir. 2002). “See 29 C.F.R. § 18.42 . Nor, for that matter, did UUIC ask this court to expedite this present appeal.”
Midwest Farmworker v. U.S. Dept. of Labor (8th Cir. 2000). “3d at 485, we, too, emphasized the availability of expedited review procedures in rejecting an argument that an administrative remedy lapsed too soon to be litigated. Midwest does not contend that it has pursued expedited procedures in this case.”
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.