29 C.F.R. § 2200.71
Rules of evidence
The Federal Rules of Evidence are applicable.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases, 1982–2018 · leading case: F & H Coatings, LLC v. Acosta, 900 F.3d 1214 (10th Cir. 2018).
F & H Coatings, LLC v. Acosta, 900 F.3d 1214 (10th Cir. 2018). “6 The parties agree that the Federal Rules of Evidence applied in proceedings before the ALJ, and frame their arguments regarding the admission of Mr. Hope's expert testimony under the standards relevant to those rules.”
Elaine Chao, Sec'y, Dep't of Labor v. Gunite Corp., 442 F.3d 550 (7th Cir. 2006). “29 C.F.R. § 2200.71 . Gunite has not pointed to any particular problem under those rules, and so we conclude that the Commission could not have rejected the ALJ’s opinion on this ground.”
Am. Wrecking Corp. v. Sec'y of Labor, 364 F.3d 321 (D.C. Cir. 2003). “Under the applicable Federal Rules of Evidence, see 29 C.F.R. § 2200.71 (1989), the photograph could be authenticated if a witness with knowledge testified that it accurately depicted the south wall after the bricks were removed but before the accident occurred.”
Capital City Excavating Co., Inc. v. Raymond J. Donovan, Sec'y of Labor, & Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 679 F.2d 105 (6th Cir. 1982). “29 C.F.R. § 2200.71 (b). We conclude that the receipt for certified mail and other exhibits submitted with the motion to dismiss were properly considered by the Commission.”
Lakeland Enter. of Rhinelander, Inc. v. Elaine L. Chao, Sec'y of Labor, 402 F.3d 739 (7th Cir. 2005). “2000); see also 29 C.F.R. § 2200.71 (Federal Rules of Evidence are applicable in OSHRC proceedings); DCS Sanitation Management, Inc.”
P. Gioioso & Sons, Inc. v. Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 675 F.3d 66 (1st Cir. 2012). “103(a)(1) (objection not made at trial is not preserved on appeal); 29 C.F.R. § 2200.71 (Federal Rules of Evidence applicable to ALJ hearings).”
Capeway Roofing Sys., Inc. v. Chao, 391 F.3d 56 (1st Cir. 2004). “Cape-way opens by claiming that in his sequestration rulings the ALJ violated Rule 615 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, made applicable by 29 C.F.R. § 2200.71 (2004). In essence, Rule 615 requires that, upon a party’s request, the presiding official exclude witnesses from the…”
Acme Energy Servs. v. Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 542 F. App'x 356 (5th Cir. 2013). “29 C.F.R. § 2200.71 . 12 . Fed.R.Evid. 702.”
Lakeland Enter Inc v. Chao, Elaine L. (7th Cir. 2005). “2000); see also 29 C.F.R. § 2200.71 (Federal Rules of Evidence are applica- ble in OSHRC proceedings); DCS Sanitation Management, Inc.”
Chao, Elaine L v. Gunite Corp. (7th Cir. 2006). “29 C.F.R. § 2200.71 . Gunite has not pointed to any particu- lar problem under those rules, and so we conclude that the Commission could not have rejected the ALJ’s opinion on this ground.”
Am. Wrecking Corp. v. Sec'y of Labor, 351 F.3d 1254 (D.C. Cir. 2003). “Under the applicable Federal Rules of Evidence, see 29 C.F.R. § 2200.71 (1989), the photograph could be authenticated if a witness with knowledge testified that it accurately depicted the south wall after the bricks were removed but before the accident occurred.”
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.