7 C.F.R. § 1.142

Post-hearing procedure

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

(a) Corrections to transcript or recording. (1) Within the period of time fixed by the Judge, any party may file a motion proposing corrections to the transcript or recording.

(2) Unless a party files such a motion in the manner prescribed, the transcript or recording shall be presumed, except for obvious typographical errors, to be a true, correct, and complete transcript or recording of the testimony given at the hearing and to contain an accurate description or reference to all exhibits received in evidence and made part of the hearing record, and shall be deemed to be certified without further action by the Judge.

(3) As soon as practicable after the close of the hearing and after consideration of any timely objections filed as to the transcript or recording, the Judge shall issue an order making any corrections to the transcript or recording which the Judge finds are warranted, which corrections shall be entered onto the original transcript or recording by the Hearing Clerk (without obscuring the original text).

(b) Proposed findings of fact, conclusions, orders, and briefs. Prior to the Judge's decision, each party shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity to submit for consideration proposed findings of fact, conclusions, order, and brief in support thereof. A copy of each such document filed by a party shall be served upon each of the other parties.

(c) Judge's decision. (1) The Judge may, upon motion of any party or in his or her own discretion, issue a decision orally at the close of the hearing, or within a reasonable time after the closing of the hearing.

(2) If the decision is announced orally, a copy thereof, excerpted from the transcript or recording, shall be furnished to the parties by the Hearing Clerk. Irrespective of the date such copy is mailed, the issuance date of the decision shall be the date the oral decision was announced.

(3) If the decision is in writing, it shall be filed with the Hearing Clerk and served upon the parties as provided in § 1.147.

(4) The Judge's decision shall become final and effective without further proceedings 35 days after the issuance of the decision, if announced orally at the hearing, or if the decision is in writing, 35 days after the date of service thereof upon the respondent, unless there is an appeal to the Judicial Officer by a party to the proceeding pursuant to § 1.145; Provided, however, that no decision shall be final for purposes of judicial review except a final decision of the Judicial Officer upon appeal.

[42 FR 743, Jan. 4, 1977, as amended at 53 FR 7177, Mar. 7, 1988; 60 FR 8456, Feb. 14, 1995; 68 FR 6340, Feb. 7, 2003]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases, 1988–2008 · leading case: Marine Mammal Conservancy, Inc. v. Dep't of Agric., 134 F.3d 409 (D.C. Cir. 1998).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Marine Mammal Conservancy, Inc. v. Dep't of Agric., 134 F.3d 409 (D.C. Cir. 1998). · cites it 3× “” 7 C.F.R. § 1.142 (c)(4) (1997); see also Ferguson v.”

PMD Produce Brokerage Corp. v. United States Dep't of Agric., 234 F.3d 48 (D.C. Cir. 2000). · cites it 5× “1 PMD contends that the Secretary of Agriculture’s Rules of Practice Governing Formal Adjudicatory Proceedings, see 7 C.F.R. §§ 1.142 (c), 1.145(a) (2000), are ambiguous regarding *50 the time to appeal and, further, that it reasonably relied on statements of the Administrative…”

Beverly Enter., Inc. v. Herman, 50 F. Supp. 2d 7 (D.D.C. 1999). “”), with 7 C.F.R. § 1.142 (c)(4). (regulations governing adjudicatory proceedings instituted by the Secretary of Agriculture, stating that “no decision shall be final for purposes of judicial review except a final decision of the Judicial Officer upon appeal”); see also…”

Jeffrey C. Ferguson v. United States Dep't of Agric., 911 F.2d 1273 (8th Cir. 1990). “The position of judicial officer was created by the Department of Agriculture to make the Department's final decisions in administrative actions.”

Richard N. Garver v. United States of Am. & United States Dep't of Agric., 846 F.2d 1029 (6th Cir. 1988). “See 7 C.F.R. §§ 1.142 (c), 1.145(i), 2.35. Upon consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record of the administrative proceedings, we find that the Judicial Officer’s choice of sanction is not unwarranted in law or without justification in fact.”

Potato Sales Co., Inc., Petitioner, v. Dep't of Agric., Respondent, 92 F.3d 800 (9th Cir. 1996). “§ 499j and 7 C.F.R. § 1.142 (c). 2 . Section 499b(5) makes it unlawful for a licensee to misrepresent the State or region of origin of any perishable agricultural commodity.”

United States v. Santos, 785 F. Supp. 843 (N.D. Cal. 1992). · cites it 2× “142 on post-hearing procedures involving the Agricultural Department, provides that the administrative Judge's decision: “shall become effective without further proceedings 35 days after the issuance of the decision, if announced orally at the hearing, or if the decision is in…”

Beucke v. United States Dep't of Agric., 314 F. App'x 10 (9th Cir. 2008). “We also conclude that the JO did not abuse its discretion in holding that the licensing and employment restrictions on Beucke pursuant to 7 U.”

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.