44 U.S.C. § 1508
Publication in Federal Register as notice of hearing
Based on 44 U.S. Code, 1964 ed., § 308 (July 26, 1935, ch. 417, § 8, 49 Stat. 502;
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases, 1973–2018 · leading case: Suntec Industries Co., Ltd. v. United States
Suntec Industries Co., Ltd. v. United States (2017)
“The second Title 44 provision of relevance is 44 U.S.C. § 1508 , which addresses a narrower situation of certain notices of timing information regarding hearings or opportunities to be heard.”
Omar Stratman v. James G. Watt, Secretary of the Interior (1981)
“Thus, while those with recreational interests have standing to challenge the agency action in question, they may not be relieved of the prerequisite of exhaustion of administrative remedies by virtue of lack of actual notice.”
KODIAK-ALEUTIAN CHAPTER OF ALASKA, ETC. v. Kleppe (1976)
“As to these two plaintiffs who held valuable property rights and whose names and addresses were known or could easily have been ascertained the notice provisions of the regulations were legally insufficient under the due process clause.”
Republic of Texas Corporation v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (1981)
“1975) (questioning whether competitors were entitled to notice at all, but holding that under 44 U.S.C. § 1508 (1976), notice published in Federal Register was legally sufficient to apprise bank holding company’s competitors of its § 3(a) application; even if specific notice…”
Maryland v. Pruitt (2018)
“44 U.S.C. § 1508 . In a number of similar cases where courts have imposed deadlines of the type sought by Maryland here, they have relied, at least in part, on expert declarations submitted by plaintiffs contending that EPA could in fact act in the time period sought by…”
Bank of Commerce and First National Bank of Sheridan v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and Wyoming Ban (1975)
“44 U.S.C. § 1508 . In our case neither the statute nor any regulation compels the Board to furnish individual notice.”
Jolene Gustafson v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (1983)
“See 44 U.S.C. § 1508 ; Bank of Commerce v. Board of Governors.”
South Terminal Corp. v. Environmental Protection Agency (1974)
“The time between publication and the hearing date was in excess of the 15 days required by 44 U.S.C. § 1508 . However, it was less than the 30 days which, under the Administrator’s own regulations, would be required in the case of a state.”
Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. California Coastal Commission (1981)
“Southern Pacific cites 44 U.S.C. § 1508 (1976) (a portion of the Federal Register Act) as authority for the proposition that notice by publication in the Federal Register is legally sufficient notice.”
Moreau v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (1993)
“will be published in the Federal Register and copies of such notice mailed *181 to States affected thereby.” 18 C.F.R. § 157.9 (1992). FERC did exactly that in this case, thereby presumptively giving notice of the FERC proceedings regarding TN Gas’s application “to all persons…”
Huaiyang Hongda Dehydrated Vegetable Co. v. United Stateser (2004)
“5 See 44 U.S.C. § 1508 . 6 Model Rule 1.4 of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, for example, implores counsel to “keep the client reasonably informed about the status of a matter” and “explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make…”
North American Pharmacal, Inc. v. Department of Health, Education, & Welfare (1973)
“§ 1508 provides in pertinent part: A notice of hearing or of opportunity to be heard, required or authorized to be given by an Act of Congress, or which may otherwise properly be given, shall be deemed to have been given to all persons residing within the States of the Union and…”
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.