Russell v. Principi’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
8 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 221 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2022 · most notably Caluza v. Brown (1995), Allday v. Brown (1995)
8 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. § 101 (Agent Orange Act of 1991) · 38 U.S.C. § 501 · 38 U.S.C. § 503 · 38 U.S.C. § 5107 · 38 U.S.C. § 5108 · 38 U.S.C. § 7103 · 38 U.S.C. § 7104 · 38 U.S.C. § 7105
Relies on Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers · Gilbert v. Derwinski · Colvin v. Derwinski · Manio v. Derwinski · Webster 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 221 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Either the correct facts, as they were known at the time, were not before the adjudicator or the statutory or regulatory provisions extant at the time were incorrectly applied.... [CUE] is the sort of error which, had it not been made, would have manifestly changed the outcome ... [, an error that is] undebatable, so that it can be said that reasonable minds could only conclude that the original decision was fatally flawed.”
16 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Garrett v. Brown · Willsey v. Peake“(a) Error. Previous determinations on which an action was predicated ... will be accepted as correct in the absence of clear and unmistakable error. Where evidence establishes such error, the prior decision will be reversed or amended....”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]his bill addresses errors similar to the kinds which are grounds for reopening Social Security claims. Under the Social Security system, a claim may be reopened at any time to correct an error which appears on the face of the evidence used when making the prior decision. " H.R.Rep. No. 105-52, at 3 (emphasis added). 44 We conclude that decisions of this court and the Veterans Court concluding that a clear and unmistakable error at the RO level must be outcome determinative and must be apparent from the evidence of record at the time of the original decision are supported by the language of 38 U.S.C. § 5109A and its legislative history. We therefore reject Mr. Cook's request that we overturn existing law to that effect. 13 45 The requirements that a clear and unmistakable error be outcome determinative and be based on the record that existed at the time of the original decision make it impossible for a breach of the duty to assist to form the basis for a CUE claim. First, a breach of the duty to assist cannot constitute an outcome determinative error. Without the benefit of additional evidence that might have been in the record but for the breach, we may only conclude that, as a result of the breach, the record was incomplete. This cannot be an "outcome-determinative”
3 later decisions 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.