C.F.R. » Title 29 » CHAPTER XXVII—FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION › PART 2700—PROCEDURAL RULES › Subpart G—Hearings

29 C.F.R. § 2700.63

Evidence; presentation of case

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

(a) Relevant evidence, including hearsay evidence, that is not unduly repetitious or cumulative is admissible.

(b) The proponent of an order has the burden of proof. A party shall have the right to present a case or defense by oral or documentary evidence, to submit rebuttal evidence, and to conduct such cross-examination as may be required for a full and true disclosure of the facts.

[58 FR 12164, Mar. 3, 1993, as amended at 90 FR 5624, Jan. 17, 2025]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 2006–2018 · leading case: Bussen Quarries v. Alexander Acosta, 895 F.3d 1039 (8th Cir. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bussen Quarries v. Alexander Acosta, 895 F.3d 1039 (8th Cir. 2018). “This is true because there is not substantial evidence supporting the ALJ's finding of a violation.”
Con-Ag, Inc. v. Sec'y of Labor, 897 F.3d 693 (6th Cir. 2018). “" See 29 C.F.R. § 2700.63 (b) (explaining that in hearings brought under the Act, "[a] party shall have the right to present his case or defense by oral or documentary evidence, to submit rebuttal evidence, and to conduct such cross-examination as may be required for a full and…”
Shamokin Filler Co. v. Fed. Mine Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 772 F.3d 330 (3d Cir. 2014). “(relying on 29 C.F.R. § 2700.63 (a), which provides, “relevant evidence, including hearsay evidence, that is not unduly repetitious or cumulative is admissible,” and Federal Rule of Evidence 403).”
Crimson Stone v. Fed. Mine Saf. & Health, 198 F. App'x 846 (11th Cir. 2006). “” 29 C.F.R. § 2700.63 (a). The record shows that the inspector testified about those other incidents at mines in Mississippi in order to establish her knowledge of and familiarity with guarding accidents.”
William Metz v. Sec'y United States Depart (3d Cir. 2013). “There is substantial evidence in the record to justify the ALJ’s determination that Metz was terminated because of his use of profane language, and even if the ALJ were to disregard some of the testimony that Metz objects to (even though hearsay is permitted at such hearings,…”
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.