CITES BY TOPIC:  hearing

5 U.S.C. §500(d)


Sec. 500. - Administrative practice; general provisions

(d) This section does not -

(1) grant or deny to an individual who is not qualified as provided by subsection (b) or (c) of this section the right to appear for or represent a person before an agency or in an agency proceeding;

(2) authorize or limit the discipline, including disbarment, of individuals who appear in a representative capacity before an agency;

(3) authorize an individual who is a former employee of an agency to represent a person before an agency when the representation is prohibited by statute or regulation; or

(4) prevent an agency from requiring a power of attorney as a condition to the settlement of a controversy involving the payment of money.

Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 500

"Due process.  [. . .] An orderly proceeding wherein a person with notice, actual or constructive, and has an opportunity to be heard and to enforce and protect his rights before a court having the power to hear and determine the case.  Kazubowski v. Kazubowski, 45 Ill.2d 405, 259 N.E.2d 282, 290.  Phrase means that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, property or of any right granted him by statute, unless matter involved first shall have been adjudicated against him upon trial conducted according to established rules regulating judicial proceedings, and it forbids condemnation without a hearing.  Pettit v. Penn, LaApp., 180 So.2d 66, 69."

[Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 500]

Old Wayne Mut. Life Assn v. McDonough, 204 U.S. 8 (1907)

'It is a rule as old as the law, and never more to be respected than now, that no one shall be personally bound until he has had his day in court; by which is meant until he has been duly cited to appear, and has been afforded an opportunity to be heard. Judgment without such citation and opportunity wants all the attributes of a judicial determination; it is judicial usurpation and oppression, and never can be upheld where justice is justly administered.'

[Old Wayne Mut. Life Assn v. McDonough, 204 U.S. 8 (1907)]

Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012 (1988)

We have never doubted, therefore, that the Confrontation Clause guarantees the defendant a face-to-face meeting with witnesses appearing before the trier of fact. See Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730, 748 , 749-750 (1987) (MARSHALL, J., dissenting). For example, in Kirby v. United States, 174 U.S. 47, 55 (1899), which concerned the admissibility of prior convictions of codefendants to prove an element of the offense [487 U.S. 1012, 1017]   of receiving stolen Government property, we described the operation of the Clause as follows: "[A] fact which can be primarily established only by witnesses cannot be proved against an accused . . . except by witnesses who confront him at the trial, upon whom he can look while being tried, whom he is entitled to cross-examine, and whose testimony he may impeach in every mode authorized by the established rules governing the trial or conduct of criminal cases." Similarly, in Dowdell v. United States, 221 U.S. 325, 330 (1911), we described a provision of the Philippine Bill of Rights as substantially the same as the Sixth Amendment, and proceeded to interpret it as intended "to secure the accused the right to be tried, so far as facts provable by witnesses are concerned, by only such witnesses as meet him face to face at the trial, who give their testimony in his presence, and give to the accused an opportunity of cross-examination." More recently, we have described the "literal right to `confront' the witness at the time of trial" as forming "the core of the values furthered by the Confrontation Clause." California v. Green, supra, at 157. Last Term, the plurality opinion in Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 51 (1987), stated that "[t]he Confrontation Clause provides two types of protections for a criminal defendant: the right physically to face those who testify against him, and the right to conduct cross-examination."

[Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012 (1988)]

Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539; 94 S.Ct. 2963; 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974)

"The Court has consistently held that some kind of hearing is required at some time before a person is finally deprived of his property [418 U.S. 539, 558]   interests. "

[Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539; 94 S.Ct. 2963; 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974)]

5 U.S.C. §556


Sec. 556. - Hearings; presiding employees; powers and duties; burden of proof; evidence; record as basis of decision

26 U.S.C. §7521

TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 77 > Sec. 7521.

Sec. 7521. - Procedures involving taxpayer interviews

Internal Revenue Manual (IRM) section Requests to Tape Record Interviews