Court Opinion

ID: 9452404
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 17:40:00.997372+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:12.459845
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
PER CURIAM:
In response to fears expressed in the Petition for Rehearing filed on behalf of Russell-Newman, it is now made positively clear that upon remand the Petitioner will most certainly be free to urge to the Board, or to any reviewing Court, the jurisdictional contentions now asserted. In fact, we are at loss to understand how Petitioner could have thought such to have been foreclosed by any of the language appearing in the original opinion. We think the reasoning and results of the decision are perfectly obvious. Petitioner complained of being put to a hearing on certain allegations of which it had received only the shortest notice. It is now to receive a further hearing. If an effort is made to conduct a hearing on any issue over which the Board has not acquired jurisdiction, then it is up to the Petitioner to raise the point and preserve its record.
Petitioner further suggests that the opinion did not always properly use the word “charge” in its specific statutory sense. There are instances in which we more than once used the word in its normal, ordinary meaning, synonymously to allegation, rather than in a strictly statutory sense. Viewed in context, we do not see how this can be misleading and we decline to enter further into any additional semantics.
The Petition for Rehearing is
Denied.