Public Participation in Federal Agency Proceedings, S. 2715: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Administrative Practice and Procedure of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-fourth Congress, Second Session, on S. 2715 ... January 30 and February 6, 1976U.S. Government Printing Office, 1976 |
Other editions - View all
Common terms and phrases
adjudicatory Administrative Procedure Act administrative process advisor agency action agency proceedings Alyeska amendment Appeals application assistance attorney's attorneys fees authority bill Board Boasberg broadcast Chairman citizen groups Commission's Committee compensation Cong Congress consumer Consumers Union contributions court Cramton D.C. Cir decision decisionmaking determination Docket effective environmental expenses expert witness expert witness fees federal agencies Federal Communications Commission Federal Power Commission Federal Trade Commission filed funds Government Greene County hearing industry Interstate Commerce Commission intervention involved issues judicial review legislation licensing litigation nuclear Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Public participation in agency parties person petition Procedure proposed Public Counsel public interest groups public participation question regulations reimbursement represent representation request response rule rulemaking proceedings Safety Senator KENNEDY staff statement statutes sumer Supp supra note tion U.S. Congress United views Washington
Popular passages
Page 459 - The court, in issuing any final order in any action brought pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, may award costs of litigation (including reasonable attorney and expert witness fees) to any party, whenever the court determines such award is appropriate.
Page 459 - In any action or proceeding under this title the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the Commission or the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs, and the Commission and the United States shall be liable for costs the same as a private person.
Page 53 - Judicial review must operate to ensure that the administrative process itself will confine and control the exercise of discretion. Courts should require administrative officers to articulate the standards and principles that govern their discretionary decisions in as much detail as possible.
Page 97 - In this case, as in many others, the Commission has claimed to be the representative of the public interest. This role does not permit it to act as an umpire blandly calling balls and strikes for adversaries appearing before it: the right of the public must receive active and affirmative protection at the hands of the Commission.
Page 216 - ... ..The theory that the Commission can always effectively represent the listener interests in a renewal proceeding without the aid and participation of legitimate listener representatives fulfilling the role of private attorneys general is one of those assumptions we collectively try to work with so long as they are reasonably adequate.
Page 424 - ... (5) the customary fee; (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances; (8) the amount involved and the results obtained; (9) the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorney; (10) the undesirability...
Page 460 - The court, in issuing any final order in any suit brought pursuant to paragraph ( 1 ) of this subsection may award costs of litigation ( including reasonable attorney and expert witness fees) to any party, whenever the court determines such award is appropriate.
Page 625 - Petition for leave to intervene. A petition for leave to intervene may be filed In any proceeding before the Administration. The petition will be granted by the presiding officer If the proposed intervenor establishes that It has a substantial Interest in the proceeding and will not unduly broaden the Issues therein or unduly delay the proceeding.
Page 406 - Boyer, Alternatives to Administrative Trial Type Hearings for Resolving Complex Scientific, Economic, and Social Issues, 71 Mich.
Page 267 - When a district judge, in making in a civil action an order not otherwise appealable under this section, shall be of the opinion that such order involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation, he shall so state in writing in such order.