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 Indus. Co., Ltd. v. United States, 857 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
Suntec Indus. Co., Ltd. v. United States, 857 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 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, Sec'y of the Interior, 656 F.2d 1321 (9th Cir. 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, 423 F. Supp. 544 (D. Alaska 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.”
Repub. of Texas Corp. v. Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Reserve Sys., 649 F.2d 1026 (5th Cir. 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, 320 F. Supp. 3d 722 (D. Maryland 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 Com. & First Nat'l Bank of Sheridan v. Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Reserve Sys. & Wyoming Bancorporation, 513 F.2d 164 (1st Cir. 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. Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Reserve Sys., 717 F.2d 242 (5th Cir. 1983). “See 44 U.S.C. § 1508 ; Bank of Commerce v. Board of Governors.”
South Terminal Corp. v. Env't Prot. Agency, 504 F.2d 646 (1st Cir. 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.”
S. Pac. Transp. Co. v. California Coastal Comm'n, 520 F. Supp. 800 (N.D. Cal. 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. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 982 F.2d 556 (D.C. Cir. 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 CIT 148 (Ct. Intl. Trade 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 Am. Pharmacal, Inc. v. Dep't of Health, Educ., & Welfare, 491 F.2d 546 (8th Cir. 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.