49 C.F.R. § 821.42

Initial decision by law judge

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

(a) Written or oral decision. The law judge may render his or her initial decision orally at the close of the hearing, or in writing at a later date, except as provided with respect to emergency proceedings in § 821.56(c).

(b) Content. The initial decision shall include findings and conclusions upon all material issues of fact, credibility of witnesses, law and discretion presented on the record, together with a statement of the reasons therefor.

(c) Furnishing parties with, and issuance date of, oral decision. If the initial decision is rendered orally, a copy thereof, excerpted from the hearing transcript, shall be furnished to the parties by the Office of Administrative Law Judges. Irrespective of the date on which the copy of the decision is transmitted to the parties, the issuance date of the decision shall be the date on which it was orally rendered.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1977–1992 · leading case: Edward Lee Vandehoef v. Nat'l Transp. Saf. Bd., 850 F.2d 629 (10th Cir. 1988).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Edward Lee Vandehoef v. Nat'l Transp. Saf. Bd., 850 F.2d 629 (10th Cir. 1988). · cites it 3× “79(b) is unconstitutionally vague; and (2) the AU in his “Oral Initial Decision and Order” failed to comply with the provisions of 49 C.F.R. § 821.42 . We do not agree with either contention.”

Union Flights, Inc., a California Corp. v. Adm'r, Fed. Aviation Admin., 957 F.2d 685 (9th Cir. 1992). “See 49 C.F.R. § 821.42 (d) (1990). Preparation of a transcript necessarily involves time.”

William L. Coppenbarger v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 558 F.2d 836 (7th Cir. 1977). “49 C.F.R. § 821.42 . At the hearing, each party has the right to present evidence and conduct cross-examination.”

William F. Brown, Jr. v. Nat'l Transp. Saf. Bd. & Fed. Aviation Admin., 795 F.2d 576 (6th Cir. 1986). “49 C.F.R. § 821.42 (a) provides in part: The law judge may render his initial decision orally at the close of the hearing, or he may render such decision in writing at a later date____ Section 821.”

Kolek v. Engen, 869 F.2d 1281 (9th Cir. 1989). “Thus, the NTSB could reasonably have concluded that the granting of judgment on the pleadings was proper even though Kolek had filed an answer.”

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.