King v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently July 2016 · most notably Caluza v. Brown (1995), Grottveit v. Brown (1993)
1 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. § 5101 · 38 U.S.C. § 5107 · 38 U.S.C. § 7252
Relies on Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation Same · Gilbert v. Derwinski · Radovich v. National Football League · Murphy v. Derwinski · Espiritu 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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]t is imperative that a distinction be drawn between the record on appeal and a veteran’s claims or “C” file; the larger “C” file can contain a plethora of documents having nothing to do with the claim or claims on review. Those documents, being irrelevant, are not necessary to a resolution of the claim on appeal and are not proper for designation for inclusion in the record on appeal. An increasing number of records on appeal have contained irrelevant, du-plicative, unintelligible, and, in at least one case, extraneous privacy-sensitive material. ... The designation process must not be viewed as an undisciplined dumping of documents from the “C” file as if the record on appeal were a bin into which the Secretary [or the appellant] pours documents which he guesses have been, or believes should have been, considered by the Board. The integrity of judicial review in this Court depends on the quality and completeness of the record on appeal. Quality and completeness, in turn, depend on the identification of all of the material of record which was “before the Secretary and the Board” and which is relevant to the issue(s) on appeal.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“must . . . be accepted as true for the purpose of determining whether the claim is well grounded . . . [except] when the evidentiary assertion [other than in a government record] is inherently incredible or when the fact asserted is beyond the competence of the person making the assertion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hensley v. West“This is consistent with the situation presented by judicial review of any administrative decision where the administrator must supply from official files the documents required for review.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.