Pelea v. Nicholson’s Empirical Analysis
497 F.3d 1290 · 2007
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 38 U.S.C. § 1310 · 38 U.S.C. § 1311 · 38 U.S.C. § 5112 · 38 U.S.C. § 5121
Relies on Haines v. West · Richard ex rel. Richard v. West · Padgett v. Nicholson · Seymour v. Principi · Richardson v. Nicholson
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“would not entitle [Mrs. Pelea] to any accrued benefits. The Veterans Court held only that the Board should further consider whether the VA had adequately informed her what additional evidence she should submit to support her claim. Under that ruling, she still was a long way from establishing either that her deceased husband had served in the United States military or that his death was connected with such service.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hyatt v. Shinseki
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.