29 CFR 18, Subpart B - Rules of Evidence
- § 18.101 — Scope.
- § 18.102 — Purpose and construction.
- § 18.103 — Rulings on evidence.
- § 18.104 — Preliminary questions.
- § 18.105 — Limited admissibility.
- § 18.106 — Remainder of or related writings or recorded statements.
- — Official Notice
- § 18.201 — Official notice of adjudicative facts.
- — Presumptions
- § 18.301 — Presumptions in general.
- § 18.302 — Applicability of state law.
- — Relevancy and Its Limits
- § 18.401 — Definition of relevant evidence.
- § 18.402 — Relevant evidence generally admissible; irrelevant evidence inadmissible.
- § 18.403 — Exclusion of relevant evidence on grounds of confusion or waste of time.
- § 18.404 — Character evidence not admissible to prove conduct; exceptions; other crimes.
- § 18.405 — Methods of proving character.
- § 18.406 — Habit; routine practice.
- § 18.407 — Subsequent remedial measures.
- § 18.408 — Compromise and offers to compromise.
- § 18.409 — Payment of medical and similar expenses.
- § 18.410 — Inadmissibility of pleas, plea discussion, and related statements.
- § 18.411 — Liability insurance.
- — Privileges
- § 18.501 — General rule.
- — Witnesses
- § 18.601 — General rule of competency.
- § 18.602 — Lack of personal knowledge.
- § 18.603 — Oath or affirmation.
- § 18.604 — Interpreters.
- § 18.605 — Competency of judge as witness.
- § 18.606 — [Reserved]
- § 18.607 — Who may impeach.
- § 18.608 — Evidence of character and conduct of witness.
- § 18.609 — Impeachment by evidence of conviction of crime.
- § 18.610 — Religious beliefs or opinions.
- § 18.611 — Mode and order of interrogation and presentation.
- § 18.612 — Writing used to refresh memory.
- § 18.613 — Prior statements of witnesses.
- § 18.614 — Calling and interrogation of witnesses by judge.
- § 18.615 — Exclusion of witnesses.
- — Opinions and Expert Testimony
- § 18.701 — Opinion testimony by lay witnesses.
- § 18.702 — Testimony by experts.
- § 18.703 — Bases of opinion testimony by experts.
- § 18.704 — Opinion on ultimate issue.
- § 18.705 — Disclosure of facts or data underlying expert opinion.
- § 18.706 — Judge appointed experts.
- — Hearsay
- § 18.801 — Definitions.
- § 18.802 — Hearsay rule.
- § 18.803 — Hearsay exceptions; availability of declarant immaterial.
- § 18.804 — Hearsay exceptions; declarant unavailable.
- § 18.805 — Hearsay within hearsay.
- § 18.806 — Attacking and supporting credibility of declarant.
- — Authentication and Identification
- § 18.901 — Requirement of authentication or identification.
- § 18.902 — Self-authentication.
- § 18.903 — Subscribing witness' testimony unnecessary.
- — Contents of Writings, Recordings, and Photographs
- § 18.1001 — Definitions.
- § 18.1002 — Requirement of original.
- § 18.1003 — Admissibility of duplicates.
- § 18.1004 — Admissibility of other evidence of contents.
- § 18.1005 — Public records.
- § 18.1006 — Summaries.
- § 18.1007 — Testimony or written admission of party.
- § 18.1008 — Functions of the judge.
- — Applicability
- § 18.1101 — Applicability of rules.
- § 18.1102 — [Reserved]
- § 18.1103 — Title.
- § 18.1104 — Effective date.
Title 29 published on 2012-07-01
no entries appear in the Federal Register after this date.
This is a list of United States Code sections, Statutes at Large, Public Laws, and Presidential Documents, which provide rulemaking authority for this CFR Part.
This list is taken from the Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules provided by GPO [Government Printing Office].
It is not guaranteed to be accurate or up-to-date, though we do refresh the database weekly. More limitations on accuracy are described at the GPO site.
Executive Order ... 12778
Title 29 published on 2012-07-01
The following are ALL rules, proposed rules, and notices (chronologically) published in the Federal Register relating to 29 CFR 18 after this date.
GPO FDSys XML | Text type regulations.gov FR Doc. 2012-28516 RIN 1290-AA26 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Office of the Secretary Notice of proposed rulemaking. Submit comments on or before February 4, 2013. 29 CFR Part 18 The Department of Labor proposes to revise and reorganize the Rules of Practice and Procedure for Administrative Hearings Before the Office of Administrative Law Judges, from our regulations, which provide procedural guidance to administrative law judges, claimants, employers, and Department of Labor representatives seeking to resolve disputes under a variety of employment and labor laws. The Office of Administrative Law Judges promulgated these regulations in 1983. The regulations were modeled on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) and have proved extraordinarily helpful in providing litigants with familiar rules governing hearing procedure. Since 1983, the FRCP have been amended many times. Moreover, in 2007 the FRCP were given a complete revision to improve style and clarity. The nature of litigation has also changed in the past 28 years, particularly in the areas of discovery and electronic records. Thus, OALJ has revised its regulations to make the rules more accessible and useful to parties, and to harmonize administrative hearing procedures with the current FRCP. The goal in amending the regulations is to provide clarity through the use of consistent terminology, structure and formatting so that parties have clear direction when pursuing or defending against a claim. In addition to revising the regulations to conform to modern legal procedure, the rules need to be modified to reflect the types of claims now heard by OALJ. When the rules were promulgated in 1983, OALJ primarily adjudicated occupational disease and injury cases. Presently, and looking ahead to the future, OALJ is and will be increasingly tasked with hearing whistleblower and other workplace retaliation claims, in addition to the occupational disease and injury cases. These types of cases require more structured management and oversight by the presiding administrative law judge and more sophisticated motions and discovery procedures than the current regulations provide. In order to best manage the complexities of whistleblower and discrimination claims, OALJ needs to update its rules to address the procedural questions that arise in these cases.