46 C.F.R. § 502.226

Decision based on official notice; public documents

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

(a) Official notice may be taken of such matters as might be judicially noticed by the courts, or of technical or scientific facts within the general knowledge of the Commission as an expert body, provided, that where a decision or part thereof rests on the official notice of a material fact not appearing in the evidence in the record, the fact of official notice shall be so stated in the decision, and any party, upon timely request, shall be afforded an opportunity to show the contrary.

(b) Whenever there is offered in evidence (in whole or in part) a public document, such as an official report, decision, opinion, or published scientific or economic statistical data issued by any of the executive departments (or their subdivisions), legislative agencies or committees, or administrative agencies of the Federal Government (including Government-owned corporations), or a similar document issued by a state or its agencies, and such document (or part thereof) has been shown by the offeror to be reasonably available to the public, such document need not be produced or marked for identification, but may be offered in evidence as a public document by specifying the document or relevant part thereof. [Rule 226.]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1978–2002 · leading case: Fed. Mar. Comm'n v. South Carolina State Ports Auth., 535 U.S. 743 (2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Fed. Mar. Comm'n v. South Carolina State Ports Auth., 535 U.S. 743 (2002). · cites it 2× “See 46 CFR §§ 502.226 , 502.227, 502.230 (2001); see also 46 U.”

United States Lines, Inc. v. Fed. Mar. Comm'n & United States of Am., Hapag-Lloyd A. G., Intervenors, 584 F.2d 519 (D.C. Cir. 1978). · cites it 2× “48 Indeed, the Commission’s own rules require this, see 46 C.F.R. § 502.226 (d) (1976), and its reliance in this case on data within its own files, without disclosing what these data include or affording an opportunity to the parties to rebut their accuracy or validity, violates…”

Capitol Transp., Inc. v. United States of Am. & Fed. Mar. Comm'n, Sea-Land Serv., Inc., Intervenors, 612 F.2d 1312 (1st Cir. 1979). “See 46 C.F.R. § 502.226 (1978). And finally, Capitol proposed in its opening brief following the hearing before the AU that the Commission find as follows: “5.”

Puerto Rico Ports Auth. v. Fed. Mar. Comm'n, 642 F.2d 471 (D.C. Cir. 1980). · cites it 2× “46 C.F.R. § 502.226 (a) (1979). A proviso requires that if a decision rests on notice of a material fact not appearing in the evidence of the record, the fact of notice is to be stated in the decision, and any party, on timely request, is to have the opportunity to prove the…”

Puerto Rico Ports Auth. v. Fed. Mar. Comm'n & United States of Am., Seatrain Lines of Puerto Rico, Inc., Intervenor. Puerto Rico Mar. Shipping Auth. v. Fed. Mar. Comm'n & United States of Am., Seatrain Lines of Puerto Rico, Inc., Intervenor. Puerto Rico Mar. Shipping Auth. v. Fed. Mar. Comm'n & United States of Am., Seatrain Lines of Puerto Rico, Inc., Seatrain Gitmo, Inc., Intervenors. Puerto Rico Ports Auth. v. Fed. Mar. Comm'n & United States of Am., Seatrain Lines of Puerto Rico, Inc., Seatrain Gitmo, Inc., Intervenors, 642 F.2d 471 (D.C. Cir. 1980). “76-41 that the cranes were indispensable to operations at Isla Grande. The majority characterizes the configuration of the Isla Grande docks as not a "technical or scientific fact" and I do not disagree.”

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.