Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 3 VETAPP 162 - Aronson v. Derwinski

Aronson v. Derwinski’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
September 2009
most recently cited

Relationships

Applies 38 U.S.C. § 5301 · 38 U.S.C. § 5904 · 38 U.S.C. § 7263

Relies on Anderson v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation · In re the Fee Agreement of SMITH · Heerdt v. Derwinski · Aronson 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “As to any conflict between the non-as-signability of benefits provision of 38 U.S.C. § 5301 and the attorney fee provisions of Chapters 59 and 72 of title 38, basic rules of statutory construction dictate that we must construe those provisions in such a way as to avoid or eliminate such conflict. Sutherland Statutory Construction § 53.01, at 549 (4th ed. 1984); Anderson v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., 918 F.2d 1139 (4th Cir.1990). In this case, we need only look to the provisions of 38 U.S.C. § 5904 (d)(3) for general guidance as to treatment of attorney fees and past due benefits and to 38 U.S.C. § 7263 for our authority to review fee agreements....”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(i) The total fee payable (excluding expenses) does not exceed 20 percent of the total amount of the past-due benefits awarded, (ii) The amount of the fee is contingent on whether or not the claim is resolved in a manner favorable to the claimant or appellant, and (iii) The award of past-due benefits results in a cash payment to a claimant or an appellant from which the fee may be deducted.”
    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.