Hamilton v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
How this case has been cited
Cited by 110 later decisions — most recently May 2024 · most notably Vda de Landicho v. Brown (1994), Suttmann v. Brown (1993)
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. § 501 · 38 U.S.C. § 5101 · 38 U.S.C. § 5103 · 38 U.S.C. § 7105 · 38 U.S.C. § 7251 · 38 U.S.C. § 7252 · 38 U.S.C. § 7266
Relies on Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie Des Bauxites De Guinee · Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp. · Cromwell v. County of Sac · Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord · Chicot County Drainage District v. Baxter State Bank
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 110 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“There can be only one valid NOD as to a particular claim, extending to all subsequent RO and BVA adjudications on the same claim until a final RO or BVA decision has been rendered in that matter, or the appeal has been withdrawn by the claimant.... [Wjhere the BVA remands to an RO for further development and readjudication a claim previously decided by the RO and properly appealed to the BVA ... an expression of disagreement with a subsequent RO readjudication on remand cannot be an NOD.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Vettese v. Brown · West v. Brown“[Ujntil there was & final RO or BVA decision on appellant’s claims, ... “there was no function that a new NOD [here, the January 1990 letter] ... could have performed in VA’s adjudication process, and, consequently, a VJRA § 402 NOD could not have been filed insofar as this Court’s jurisdiction is concerned.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) General. When, during the course of review, it is determined that further evidence or clarification of the evidence or correction of a procedural defect is essential for a proper appellate decision, the section of the Board shall remand the case to the agency of original jurisdiction, specifying the further development to be undertaken. (b) Review by agency of original jurisdiction. Where the development results in additional evidence, a [SSOC] will be furnished the appellant ..., and the records will again will reviewed by the agency of original jurisdic tion.... If the case is remanded to cure a procedural defect, the Board may also require issuance of a [SSOC] to assure full notification to the appellant of the statement of the case. (c) Resubmission to Board of Veterans Appeals. Unless the benefits at issue on appeal are awarded upon review by the agency of original jurisdiction, the records will be returned to the [Board] for completion of appellate review. Remanded cases will not be closed for failure to respond to the supplemental statement of the case. (Emphasis added).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hamilton 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.