Barger v. Principi’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 38 U.S.C. § 5302 · 38 U.S.C. § 7252 · 38 U.S.C. § 7261
Relies on Gilbert v. Derwinski · Edward T. Splane and Paralyzed Veterans of America v. Togo D. West, Jr., Secretary of Veterans Affairs · Smith v. Brown · Maggitt v. West · Holliday v. Principi
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The statute at issue in this appeal is found in chapter 53 of title 38 of the U.S.Code, which concerns special provisions relating to VA benefits. The statute contains its own notice provisions, which, as the Court has held herein, the Board did not misinterpret. The notice and duty-to-assist provisions of the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000, Pub.L. No. 106-475, 114 Stat.2096 (Nov. 9, 2000) (VCAA), which the Secretary argues generally should require a remand of this matter, are relevant to a different chapter of title 38, and do not apply to this appeal. See generally Smith (Claudus) [v. Gober], supra[, 14 Vet.App. 227 (2000)] (holding that VCAA did not affect issue of whether federal statute allowed payment of interest on past-due benefits).”
1 later decision 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.