Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 282 F.3d 1362 - Scates v. Principi

Scates v. Principi’s Empirical Analysis

282 F.3d 1362 · 2002

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
May 2024
most recently cited

4 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2024 · most notably Lamb v. Principi (2002), Disabled American Veterans v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs (2003)

4 federal appellate ·

170200220102020decided

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 Walters v. National Assn. of Radiation Survivors · United States v. Brosnan · Howard v. Lyons · Baird v. Koerner · Cox v. West

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

  1. “(a) All questions in a matter which under section 511(a) of this title is subject to decision by the Secretary shall be subject to one review on appeal to the Secretary. Final decisions on such appeals shall be made by the Board. Decisions of the Board shall be based on the entire record in the proceeding and upon consideration of all evidence and material of record and applicable provisions of law and regulation. (b) Except as provided in section 5108 of this title, when a claim is disallowed by the Board, the claim may not thereafter be reopened and allowed and a claim based upon the same factual basis may not be considered.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Mason contends that the Veterans Court improperly authorized his former client Scates to participate in the Regional Office proceedings to determine Mason’s right to a fee. Scates, however, has a substantial, immediate and direct financial interest in the attorney fee claim, since the Department’s payments to Mason will be made from the twenty percent of Scates’ accrued benefits that the Department withheld for that purpose. If less than the twenty percent is paid to Mason, presumably the balance will be paid to Scates.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[A]n attorney with a contingent fee contract for payment of twenty percent of accrued veterans benefits awarded, discharged by the client before the case is completed, is not automatically entitled to the full twenty percent fee. He may receive only a fee that fairly and accurately reflects his contribution to and responsibility for the benefits awarded.”
    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.