49 C.F.R. § 821.37

Notice of hearing

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

(a) Time and location of hearing. The law judge to whom the proceeding is assigned (or the chief judge) shall set a reasonable date, time and place for the hearing. Except as provided with respect to emergency proceedings in § 821.56(a), a written notice of hearing shall be served on the parties at least 30 days in advance of the hearing. The law judge may set the hearing for a date fewer than 30 days after the date of the issuance of the notice of hearing if all of the parties consent to an earlier hearing date. In setting the date of the hearing, due regard shall be given to the parties' discovery needs. In setting the place of the hearing, due regard shall be given to the location of the subject incident, the convenience of the parties and their witnesses, and the conservation of Board funds. Another relevant factor in determining the place of the hearing is the convenience of the hearing site to scheduled transportation service. Only in the most extraordinary circumstances may consideration be given to locating a hearing in a foreign country.

(b) Hearing in several sessions. Where appropriate, the law judge may hold a hearing in more than one session, at the same or different locations.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1986–2005 · leading case: United States v. Paul Patric McBride, 788 F.2d 1429 (10th Cir. 1986).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Paul Patric McBride, 788 F.2d 1429 (10th Cir. 1986). “49 C.F.R. § 821.37 . The initial decision of the AU affirmed the FAA’s suspension order when appellant failed to appear at the hearing on May 11, 1981.”

Barry M. Cornish v. Fed. Aviation Admin. Nat'l Transp. Saf. Bd., 429 F.3d 806 (8th Cir. 2005). “See 49 C.F.R. §§ 821.37 -.40. The Administrator introduced lab analyses showing that Cornish’s urine sample contained 2027 micrograms per milliliter of a nitrite adulterant, more than four times *808 the concentration that the policy memo-randa define as making the sample…”

Barry M. Cornish v. FAA (8th Cir. 2005). “See 49 C.F.R. §§ 821.37 -.40. The Administrator introduced lab analyses showing that Cornish’s urine sample contained 2027 micrograms per milliliter of a nitrite adulterant, more than four times the concentration that the policy memoranda define as making the sample adulterated.”

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.