(a) Assignment of law judge and duration of assignment. The chief law judge shall assign a law judge to preside over each proceeding. Until such assignment, motions, requests and documents shall be addressed to the Case Manager for handling by the chief law judge, who may handle these matters personally or delegate them to other law judges for decision. After assignment of a proceeding to a law judge, all motions, requests and documents shall be addressed to that law judge. The authority of the assigned law judge shall terminate upon the expiration of the period within which appeals from initial decisions or appealable orders may be filed, or upon the law judge's withdrawal from the proceeding.
(b) Powers of law judge. Law judges shall have the following powers:
(1) To give notice of, and to hold, prehearing conferences and hearings, and to consolidate proceedings which involve a common question of law or fact;
(2) To hold conferences, before or during the hearing, for the settlement or simplification of issues;
(3) To issue subpoenas, and to take depositions or cause depositions to be taken;
(4) To dispose of procedural requests or similar matters;
(5) To rule on motions;
(6) To regulate the conduct of hearings;
(7) To administer oaths and affirmations;
(8) To examine witnesses;
(9) To receive evidence and rule upon objections and offers of proof; and
(10) To issue initial decisions and dispositional orders.
(c) Disqualification. A law judge shall withdraw from a proceeding if, at any time, he or she deems himself or herself disqualified. If the law judge does not withdraw, and if an appeal from the law judge's initial decision is filed, the Board will, on motion of a party, determine whether the law judge should have withdrawn and, if so, order appropriate relief.
[68 FR 22625, Apr. 29, 2003, as amended at 77 FR 63252, Oct. 16, 2012]
Notes of Decisions
United States v. Paul Patric McBride, 788 F.2d 1429 (10th Cir. 1986).
“49 C.F.R. §§ 821.35 (b)(10) & 821.42. The next day appellant wrote the AU explaining that he was absent because he went to the United States Courthouse rather than the location contained in the notice of hearing.”
Lackey v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 386 F. App'x 689 (9th Cir. 2010).
“49 C.F.R. § 821.35 (b)(8). Although the ALJ interrupted the questioning and posed his own questions to the witnesses on several occasions, he was consistent in his treatment of both Lackey’s counsel and counsel for the FAA.”
Edward T. Jeszka v. NTSB, 392 F. App'x 779 (11th Cir. 2010).
“” See 49 CFR 821.35(b)(6) (granting ALJs the power “[t]o regulate the conduct of hearings”).”
Swaters v. United States Dep't of Transp., 826 F.3d 507 (D.C. Cir. 2016).
“49 C.F.R. §§ 821.35 , 821.37-40. At that hearing, which follows the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Evidence “to the extent practicable,” id.”
Zeus Enter., Inc. v. Alphin Aircraft, Inc., 190 F.3d 238 (4th Cir. 1999).
“See 49 C.F.R. § 821.35 (a) (1998). At the ensuing hearing each party had the opportunity to present its evidence and to cross-examine witnesses.”
Dahl v. Dickson (D.D.C. 2020).
“The NTSB has two stages of review: (1) an evidentiary hearing before an NTSB Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) who is empowered “to issue initial decisions,” 49 C.F.R. §§ 821.35 (b)(10), 821.42; and (2) an appeal to the full Board, which reviews the ALJ’s decision and issues a…”
Bonnet v. Whitaker, 118 F.4th 154 (1st Cir. 2024).
“See 49 C.F.R. § 821.35 (b)(1), (8). Bias cannot be established merely by showing that "the ALJ interrupted the questioning and posed his own questions" when there is no evidence that "bias or prejudice stemmed from an 'extrajudicial source.”
Corredor v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 307 F. App'x 316 (11th Cir. 2009).
“]” 49 C.F.R. § 821.35 (b)(6). Corredor was on notice the evidentiary hearing before the ALJ was scheduled for two days.”
— 49 C.F.R. § 821.35(b)(6) — 1 case
Edward T. Jeszka v. NTSB, 392 F. App'x 779 (11th Cir. 2010).
“” See 49 CFR 821.35(b)(6) (granting ALJs the power “[t]o regulate the conduct of 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.