Sondel v. West’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 38 U.S.C. § 1110 · 38 U.S.C. § 5101 · 38 U.S.C. § 5108 · 38 U.S.C. § 5109A · 38 U.S.C. § 5110 · 38 U.S.C. § 7104 · 38 U.S.C. § 7252 · 38 U.S.C. § 7261
Relies on Bigelow v. Virginia · Russell v. Principi · Allday v. Brown · Consolidated Aluminum Corporation v. Foseco International Limited · Kutscherousky v. West
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“CUE may be based on a showing 'that there was no evidence before the RO that could have supported denial of the claim on the merits; that is, [that] all of the evidence militated in support of the claim'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“to raise CUE there must be some degree of specificity as to what the alleged error is and . . . persuasive reasons must be given as to why the result would have been manifestly different”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“that the Secretary must have intended the revised presumption of aggravation . . . to be at least as beneficial . . . as the presumption applicable to peacetime veterans.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.