43 CFR 4.1374 - Burdens of proof

Cite as43 CFR 4.1374
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
5 practice notes
  • Surface coal mining hearings and appeals; special rules,
    • United States
    • Federal Register March 20, 2003
    • 20 Marzo 2003
    ...filed its petition, it was the plaintiff in a challenge to several Departmental rules, including those allocating the burden of proof in 43 CFR 4.1374 and 4.1384. Although NMA did not include those rules in its petition, the then-Director of OHA replied that ``it would be prudent to await t......
  • Nat'l Mining Ass'n v. Office of Hearings, Case No. 1:04–cv–00128 BJR.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • 15 Abril 2011
    ...was decided. In NMA v. DOI 2001, NMA challenged, among other things, the burden of proof allocations contained in two OHA regulations: 43 C.F.R. §§ 4.1374 and 4.1384. Neither of these regulations is being challenged by NMA in the instant case. The court sees no reason to opine about whether......
  • Nat'l Mining Assoc. v. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, No. 96-5274
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • 8 Junio 2001
    ...Department's Office of Hearing and Appeals (OHA) were not changed by the new rulemaking, NMA's original challenge to those rules--43 C.F.R. 4.1374 and 4.1384--presents a live controversy. Both rules place the "burden of persuasion" on those challenging the validity of a decision to rescind ......
  • Nat'l MINING Ass'n v. OFFICE of HEARINGS, CASE NO. 1:04-cv-00128 BJR
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • 15 Abril 2011
    ...In NMA v. DOI 2001, NMA Page 13challenged, among other things, the burden of proof allocations contained in two OHA regulations: 43 C.F.R. §§4.1374 and 4.1384. Neither of these regulations is being challenged by NMA in the instant case. The court sees no reason to opine about whether OHA's ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 cases
  • Nat'l Mining Ass'n v. Office of Hearings, Case No. 1:04–cv–00128 BJR.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • 15 Abril 2011
    ...was decided. In NMA v. DOI 2001, NMA challenged, among other things, the burden of proof allocations contained in two OHA regulations: 43 C.F.R. §§ 4.1374 and 4.1384. Neither of these regulations is being challenged by NMA in the instant case. The court sees no reason to opine about whether......
  • Nat'l Mining Assoc. v. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, No. 96-5274
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • 8 Junio 2001
    ...Department's Office of Hearing and Appeals (OHA) were not changed by the new rulemaking, NMA's original challenge to those rules--43 C.F.R. 4.1374 and 4.1384--presents a live controversy. Both rules place the "burden of persuasion" on those challenging the validity of a decision t......
  • Nat'l MINING Ass'n v. OFFICE of HEARINGS, CASE NO. 1:04-cv-00128 BJR
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • 15 Abril 2011
    ...In NMA v. DOI 2001, NMA Page 13challenged, among other things, the burden of proof allocations contained in two OHA regulations: 43 C.F.R. §§4.1374 and 4.1384. Neither of these regulations is being challenged by NMA in the instant case. The court sees no reason to opine about whether OHA's ......
  • National Min. Ass'n v. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Nos. 97-5202
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • 28 Mayo 1999
    ...Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 556(d). The challenged burden framework is set out not in the IFR but in OSM's procedural rules, see 43 C.F.R. §§ 4.1374(b), 4.1384(b), which are subject to appeal in a separate pending action. See supra note 11 We recognize that the Fourth Circuit has held that se......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT