(a) General. The agency shall promptly review appeals in accordance with the requirements of applicable law and this part.
(b) Actions which may be appealed. Any aggrieved person may file a written appeal with the agency in any case in which the person believes that the agency has failed to properly consider the person's application for assistance under this part. Such assistance may include, but is not limited to, the person's eligibility for, or the amount of, a payment required under § 24.106 or § 24.107, or a relocation payment required under this part. The agency shall consider a written appeal regardless of form.
(c) Time limit for initiating appeal. The agency may set a reasonable time limit for a person to file an appeal. The time limit shall not be less than 60 days after the person receives written notification of the agency's determination on the person's claim.
(d) Right to representation. A person has a right to be represented by legal counsel or other representative in connection with his or her appeal, but solely at the person's own expense.
(e) Review of files by person making appeal. The agency shall permit a person to inspect and copy all materials pertinent to his or her appeal, except materials which are classified as confidential by the agency. The agency may, however, impose reasonable conditions on the person's right to inspect, consistent with applicable laws.
(f) Scope of review of appeal. In deciding an appeal, the agency shall consider all pertinent justification and other material submitted by the person, and all other available information that is needed to ensure a fair and full review of the appeal.
(g) Determination and notification after appeal. Promptly after receipt of all information submitted by a person in support of an appeal, the agency shall make a written determination on the appeal, including an explanation of the basis on which the decision was made, and furnish the person a copy. If the full relief requested is not granted, the agency shall inform the person that the determination is the agency's final decision and that the person may seek judicial review of the agency's determination.
(h) Agency official to review appeal. The agency official conducting the review of the appeal shall be either the head of the agency or his or her authorized designee. However, the official shall not have been directly involved in the action appealed.
Notes of Decisions
Rollock Co. v. United States, 115 Fed. Cl. 317 (Fed. Cl. 2014).
· cites it 9× “49 C.F.R. § 24.10 (b). After the agency reaches a decision on the appeal, and “[i]f the full relief requested is not granted, the [a]gency shall advise the person of his or her right to seek judicial review of the [a]gency decision.”
Wax 'N Works v. City of St. Paul, 213 F.3d 1016 (8th Cir. 2000).
· cites it 6× “Two months after its initial application, therefore, considering itself to be an “aggrieved person” whose “application for assistance” the city had “failed to properly consider,” Wax ’n Works requested an appeal, see 49 C.F.R. § 24.10 (b), of the city’s “determination,” see 49 C.”
In Re Relocation Benefits of James Bros. Furniture, Inc., 642 N.W.2d 91 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 6× “49 C.F.R. § 24.10 (b) (2000). In addition, an agency or other appointing authority has broad discretion in selecting an official to consider the appeal: The Agency official conducting the review of the appeal shall be either the head of the Agency or his or her authorized…”
Alan Josephsen Co., Inc. v. Vill. of Mundelein, 2024 IL App (1st) 230641 (Ill. App. Ct. 2024).
· cites it 4× “See 49 C.F.R. § 24.10 (f), (h) (2018) (stating that “[i]n deciding an appeal, the Agency shall consider all pertinent justification and other material submitted by the person, and all other available information that is needed to ensure a fair and full review of the appeal” and…”
Chanhassen Chiropractic Ctr., P.A. v. City of Chanhassen, 663 N.W.2d 559 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 2× “49 C.F.R. § 24.10 (2002). This court has recently addressed whether Minnesota should follow the federal appeal process for relocation benefits and decided that Minnesota’s process must be dictated by common law and constitutional procedural-due-process principles.”
Washington Mut., FA v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 67 A.D.3d 552 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009).
“We would also note that pursuant to 49 CFR 24.10 (h), the decision of the allegedly biased representative was reviewed by an MTA official who was not directly involved in the taking and whose impartiality is not challenged.”
Michael Fernandez, D.D.S., Ltd. v. Comm'r of Highways (E.D. Va. 2024).
· cites it 3× “Additionally, that regulation does not authorize federal judicial review over state agencies, but rather directs agencies—federal or state—to decide appeals submitted by benefit applicants and to “advise” applicants of their right to judicial review of those agency appellate…”
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.