Smith v. Principi’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
3
cited by 3 later decisions
December 1994
most recently cited
Relationships
Applies 38 U.S.C. § 5107 · 38 U.S.C. § 5108 · 38 U.S.C. § 7104 · 38 U.S.C. § 7261
Relies on Gilbert v. Derwinski · Colvin v. Derwinski · Frankel v. Derwinski · Fletcher v. Derwinski · Murphy 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“However, the veteran clearly did raise to the Board a claim that the Board in 1989 had committed clear and unmistakable error by failing then to consider relevant medical evidence of record supporting his claim for service connection for the cervical spine disability.... Therefore, the Board was required to adjudicate that claim and determine whether the 1989 [Board] decision contained clear and unmistakable error requiring revision under 38 C.F.R. § 3.105 (a) (1991). See Russell v. Principi, [ 3 Vet.App. 310 , 812-14, 318-20] (1992) (consolidated with Collins v. Principi, No. 90-416) (Board required to adjudicate claim of clear and unmistakable error in prior Board decision’s failure to consider all the evidence); EF v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 324 , 326 (1991) (Board must address all issues reasonably raised to it by appellant). Therefore, remand is required for the Board to consider whether clear and unmistakable error was committed in the 1989 [Board] decision denying the veteran’s claim for service connection for a cervical spine disability.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Smith v. Brown“Reconsideration of an appellate decision may be accorded at any time by the [Board] on motion by the appellant or his or her representative or on the Board’s own motion: (a) Upon allegation of obvious error of fact or law; (b) Upon discovery of new and material evidence in the form of relevant records or reports of the service department concerned; or (c) Upon allegation that an allowance of benefits by the Board has been materially influenced by false or fraudulent evidence submitted by or on behalf of the appellant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Smith v. Brown
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.