Hamilton v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis
39 F.3d 1574 · 1994
Citation profile
6 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 86 later decisions — most recently April 2017 · most notably Zevalkink v. Brown (1996), Ledford v. West (1998)
6 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. § 7105 · 38 U.S.C. § 7251 · 38 U.S.C. § 7292
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Prenzler v. Derwinski · Hamilton v. Brown · Strott 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 86 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A written communication from a claimant or the representative expressing dissatisfaction or disagreement with an adjudicative determination of an agency of original jurisdiction ... will constitute a notice of disagreement. The notice of disagreement should be in terms which can be reasonably construed as a desire for review of that determination. It need not be expressed in any special wording.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Allin v. Brown · Barrera v. Gober“When a case is remanded by the [Board], the [AOJ] will complete the additional development of the evidence or procedural development required. Following completion of the development, the case will be reviewed to determine whether the additional development, together with the evidence which was previously of record, supports the allowance of all benefits sought on appeal. If so, the Board and the appel lant and his or her representative, if any, will be promptly informed. If any benefits sought on appeal remain denied following this review, the [AOJ] will issue a[n SSOC]_ Following the 60-day period allowed for a response to the [SSOC] pursuant to Rule of Practice 302, paragraph (c) (§ 20.302(c) of this chapter), the case will be returned to the Board for further appellate processing unless the appeal is withdrawn or review of the response to the [SSOC] results in the allowance of all beneñts sought on appeal. Remanded cases will not be closed for failure to respond to the [SSOC].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Holland v. Brown“Where [an SSOC] is furnished, a period of 60 days from the date of mailing of the [SSOC] will be allowed for response.... Provided a Substantive Appeal has been timely filed in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section, the response to [an SSOC] is optional and is not required for the perfection of an appeal, unless the [SSOC] covers issues that were not included in the original [SOC]. If [an SSOC] covers issues that were not included in the original [SOC], a Substantive Appeal must be fíled with respect to those issues within 60 days in order to perfect an appeal with respect to the additional issues.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Holland 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.