Teten v. West’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The Board ... denied the appellant’s accrued-benefits claim based on the Federal Circuit’s holding in Jones (Ethel), that “without the veteran having a claim pending at time of death, the surviving spouse has no claim upon which to derive ... her own application” for accrued benefits, Jones (Ethel) [v. West], 136 F.3d [1296,] 1300 [(Fed.Cir.1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 834, 119 S.Ct. 90 , 142 L.Ed.2d 71 (1998) ]. R. at 6. In that May 1998 BVA decision, the Board failed to apply or even mention this Court’s January 1995 order that had vacated the April 1991 BVA decision (and consequently any underlying RO decision, see Yoma v. Brown, 8 VetApp. 298, 299 (1995) (per curiam order)), upon which the veteran’s motion for BVA reconsideration was based. Tet-en [I], 1995 WL 59079 , at ; R. at 77-78. That 1995 Court order had vacated the April 1991 BVA decision in order “to ensure that the BVA decision [which had not become final upon the veteran’s death] and the underlying RO decision [would] have no preclusive effect in the adjudication of any accrued-benefits claims derived from the veteran’s entitlements.” Ibid.; see also Landicho [v. Brown ], 7 Vet.App. [42,] 53-54 [ (1994) ] (holding that, where veteran dies during pendency of claim, appropriate remedy is for Court to vacate BVA and RO decisions in order that those decisions will “pose no actual or threatened injury” to any accrued-benefits claimants); [ (other citations omitted) ]. In a recent opinion in Kelsey v. West, this Cou”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 16 Vet. App. 112 - Teten v. Principi