Ashley v. Derwinski’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently May 2014 · most notably Ashley v. Derwinski (1992), Mason v. Brown (1995)
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. § 7104 · 38 U.S.C. § 7266
Relies on McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. · United States v. Chemical Foundation, Inc. · Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Miranda · Rosler v. Derwinski · Machado 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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the defect ... was cured on November 1, 1990, when, according to the appellant’s own records, the NVLSP received the BVA decision dated October 24, 1990. The Notice of Appeal filed on March 1, 1991, 120 days after November 1, 1990, is a timely and sufficient predicate for this Court to exercise jurisdiction over this appeal. There is no need for us to decide what the result would have been had the NVLSP never received the decision.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Evidence that a BVA decision was not received is just that: evidence going to the question of receipt; it is not evidence going to the question of mailing. At most, evidence of non-receipt of a BVA decision, indeed the fact of non-receipt, arguably may raise an inference that the decision was not mailed but that is hardly the type of “clear evidence” which Chemical Foundation requires to rebut the presumption of regularity which “supports the official acts of public officers.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Montalvo v. Brown“the 120-day filing period . . . did not begin to run . . . , because the B[oard] failed to meet its statutory obligation to mail a copy of the decision to her representative”
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.