Smith v. Nicholson’s Empirical Analysis
451 F.3d 1344 · 2006
Citation profile
13 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 65 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2020 · most notably Haas v. Peake (2008), Newhouse v. Nicholson (2007)
13 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
Relies on Udall v. Tallman · Auer v. Robbins · Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co. · Thomas Jefferson University v. Shalala · Martin v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission
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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'of controlling weight unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We review interpretation of regulations by the Veterans Court de novo and may set aside any regulation or interpretation of a regulation that we find to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; contrary to a constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or in violation of a statutory right; or without observation of a procedure required by law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“38 C.F.R. § 4.25 (b) [(2005)]. Thus, § 4.25(b) is a general rule requiring separate disability ratings for each disability arising from a single disease. The question here is whether tinnitus in both ears constitutes separate disabilities. The Veterans Court observed that[,] under [Diagnostic Code] 6260, tinnitus is listed as a disease of the ear, implicating § 4.25(b), which also uses the term”
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.