Cox v. West’s Empirical Analysis
149 F.3d 1360 · 1998
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 129 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably Lamb v. Principi (2002), In Re: Leroy Richards Nominal Hon Ive a Swan
20 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. · Kerr v. United States Dist. Court for Northern Dist. of Cal. · Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass'n · Freytag v. Commissioner · Telecommunications Research & Action Center v. Federal Communications Commission
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 129 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a law that affects the provision of benefits”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(d)(1) When a claimant and an attorney have entered into a fee agreement described in paragraph (2) of this subsection, the total fee payable to the attorney may not exceed 20 percent of the total amount of any past-due benefits awarded on the basis of the claim. (2)(A) A fee agreement referred to in paragraph (1) is one under which the total amount of the fee payable to the attorney— (i) is to be paid to the attorney by the Secretary directly from any past-due benefits awarded on the basis of the claim; and (ii) is contingent on whether or not the matter is resolved in a manner favorable to the claimant. (B) For purposes of subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, a claim shall be considered to have been resolved in a manner favorable to the claimant if all or any part of the relief sought is granted. (3) To the extent that past-due benefits are awarded in any proceeding before the Secretary, the Board of Veterans' Appeals, or the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, the Secretary may direct that payment of any attorneys’ fee under a fee arrangement described in paragraph (1) of this subsection be made out of such past-due benefits. In no event may the Secretary withhold for the purpose of such payment any portion of benefits payable for a period after the date of the final decision of the Secretary, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, or Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims making (or ordering the making of) the award.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“As the Court of Veterans Appeals correctly held, Cox’s claim requires the Secretary to make a decision “under a law that affects the provision of benefits by the Secretary to veterans.” 28 U.S.C. § 511 (a).... The relevant issue under section 511(a) is whether the decision necessarily interpreted a law that affects veterans’ benefits. Likewise, the court properly held that such a decision by the Secretary is mandatory under section 511(a) and that a claimant is then entitled to review by the Board [of Veterans’ Appeals]. See 38 U.S.C. § 7104 (a).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.