Godfrey v. Derwinski’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently February 2014
1 federal appellate ·
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
Applies 38 U.S.C. § 1101 · 38 U.S.C. § 1110 · 38 U.S.C. § 5110 · 38 U.S.C. § 7252 · 38 U.S.C. § 7261
Relies on Gilbert v. Derwinski · EF v. Derwinski · Green v. Derwinski · Littke v. Derwinski · Myers v. Derwinski
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Appellant may establish the required nexus between his current condition and his term of military service if he can show that his disability “result[ed] from personal injury suffered ... in line of duty”. 38 U.S.C. § 1110 (formerly § 310. Cf. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d) (1991) (service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after separation when all the evidence establishes that the disease was incurred in service). If evidence should sufficiently demonstrate a medical relationship between the veteran’s in-service exposure to loud noise and his current disability, it would follow that the veteran incurred an injury in service; the requirements of section 1110 would be satisfied.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“This Court has 'exclusive jurisdiction to review decisions of the Board of Veterans' Appeals' . . . .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“It is not the role of this Court to serve as the initial finder of fact.”
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.