49 C.F.R. § 1104.4

Attestation and verification

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

(a) Signature of attorney or practitioner. If a party is represented by a practitioner or an attorney, the original of each paper filed should be signed in ink by the practitioner or attorney, whose address should be stated. The signature of a practitioner or attorney constitutes a certification that the representative:

(1) Has read the pleading, document or paper;

(2) Is authorized to file it;

(3) Believes that there is good ground for the document;

(4) Has not interposed the document for delay;

A pleading, document or paper thus signed need not be verified or accompanied by affidavit unless required elsewhere in these rules.

(b) Signature by one not authorized to represent others before the Board. The original of each document not signed by a practitioner or attorney must be:

(1) Signed in ink;

(2) Accompanied by the signer's address; and

(3) Verified, if it contains allegations of fact, under oath by the person, in whose behalf it is filed, or by a duly authorized officer of the corporation in whose behalf it is filed. If the pleading is a complaint, at least one complainant must sign and verify the pleading.

[47 FR 49554, Nov. 1, 1982, as amended at 61 FR 52711, Oct. 8, 1996]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1986–1987 · leading case: Lakeland Bus Lines, Inc. v. Interstate Com. Comm'n & United States of Am., Am. Bus Ass'n, Intervenor, 810 F.2d 280 (D.C. Cir. 1987).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Lakeland Bus Lines, Inc. v. Interstate Com. Comm'n & United States of Am., Am. Bus Ass'n, Intervenor, 810 F.2d 280 (D.C. Cir. 1987). “We note, as well, that although 49 C.F.R. § 1104.4 (a) (1986) permits an attorney’s signed representation of a fact based on personal knowledge — in lieu of an affidavit or other form of verification — this regulation does not appear to encompass the kind of oral representation…”

Cmc Real Est. Corp. v. Interstate Com. Comm'n & United States of Am., Iowa Interstate R.R., Ltd., Patrick W. Simmons, Intervenors. Cmc Real Est. Corp. v. Interstate Com. Comm'n & United States of Am., Iowa Interstate R.R., Ltd., Patrick W. Simmons, Intervenors, 807 F.2d 1025 (D.C. Cir. 1986). “49 C.F.R. 1104.4 (1984). Accordingly, the statements regarding the new operator's ability to start up service immediately constitute record evidence in support of the Commission's finding.”

CMC Real Est. Corp. v. Interstate Com. Comm'n, 807 F.2d 1025 (D.C. Cir. 1986). “49 C.F.R. 1104.4 (1984). Accordingly, the statements regarding the new operator’s ability to start up service immediately constitute record evidence in support of the Commission’s finding.”

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.