C.F.R. » Title 5 » CHAPTER II—MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD › SUBCHAPTER A—ORGANIZATION AND PROCEDURES › PART 1201—PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES › Subpart B—Procedures for Appellate Cases

5 C.F.R. § 1201.112

Jurisdiction of judge

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

(a) After issuing the initial decision, the judge will retain jurisdiction over a case only to the extent necessary to:

(1) Correct the transcript; when one is obtained;

(2) Rule on a request by the appellant for attorney fees, consequential damages, or compensatory damages under subpart H of this part;

(3) Process any petition for enforcement filed under subpart F of this part;

(4) Vacate an initial decision to accept into the record a settlement agreement that is filed prior to the deadline for filing a petition for review, even if the settlement agreement is not received until after the date when the initial decision becomes final under § 1201.113 of this part.

(b) Nothing is this section affects the time limits prescribed in § 1201.113 regarding the finality of an initial decision or the time allowed for filing a petition for review.

[59 FR 22125, Apr. 29, 1994, as amended at 62 FR 17045, Apr. 9, 1997; 70 FR 30609, May 27, 2005; 77 FR 62368, Oct. 12, 2012; 78 FR 23458, Apr. 19, 2013]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1985–2025 · leading case: Bledsoe v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 659 F.3d 1097 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bledsoe v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 659 F.3d 1097 (Fed. Cir. 2011). · cites it 2× “" 5 C.F.R. § 1201.112 (a), further provides that "[a]fter issuing the initial decision, the judge will retain jurisdiction over a case only to the extent necessary to" perform enumerated functions not including consideration of untimely evidentiary submissions.”
Troy Stewart v. Dep't of Transp., 2023 MSPB 18 (MSPB 2023). “5 C.F.R. § 1201.112 (a). By custom, administrative judges may also issue traditional errata that correct typographical or other minor errors.”
John W. Ballard v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 768 F.2d 756 (6th Cir. 1985). “See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.112 . The 35 day waiting period before an initial decision becomes final is integral to the *763 administrative process.”
Richard Bruhn v. Dep't of Agric., 2016 MSPB 42 (MSPB 2016). “182 , ¶¶ 7, 13 (2011) (finding that an administrative judge was without authority to grant a motion for certification of an interlocutory appeal filed after she issued the initial decision); 5 C.F.R. § 1201.112 (a) (providing a limited list of matters over which an…”
Richard Bruhn v. Dep't of Agric., 2016 MSPB 42 (MSPB 2016). “182 , ¶¶ 7, 13 (2011) (finding that an administrative judge was without authority to grant a motion for certification of an interlocutory appeal filed after she issued the initial decision); 5 C.F.R. § 1201.112 (a) (providing a limited list of matters over which an…”
Butler, Sr. v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 168 F. App'x 439 (Fed. Cir. 2006). “5 C.F.R. § 1201.112 . This court, therefore, affirms the decision of the Board.”
Hornsby v. Fed. Hous. Fin. Agency (D.D.C. 2025). · cites it 2× “Defendant responded, arguing that the AJ lacked jurisdiction to modify its initial decision under 5 C.F.R. § 1201.112 . AR 3027–29. The AJ apparently agreed, as it never responded to the request.”
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.