Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 5 VETAPP 95 - Cox v. Brown

Cox v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis

1993

Citation profile

72
cited by 72 later decisions
November 2010
most recently cited

How this case has been cited

Cited by 72 later decisions — most recently November 2010 · most notably Allday v. Brown (1995), Robinette v. Brown (1995)

700199320002010decided

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. § 1112 · 38 U.S.C. § 7261

Relies on Colvin v. Derwinski · Manio v. Derwinski · Espiritu v. Derwinski · Booz v. Secretary of Health & Human Services · Szubak v. Secretary of Health & Human Services

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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““New” evidence is that which is not merely cumulative of other evidence of record. “Material” evidence is that which is relevant to and probative of the issue at hand and which, as this Court stated in Colvin, supra, ... must be of sufficient weight or significance (assuming its credibility) that there is a reasonable possibility that the new evidence, when viewed in the context of all the evidence, both new and old, would change the outcome.”
    21 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Once the claim is reopened, then the adequacy of the evidence (new and old) to establish service connection is a question of fact for the Board to determine in accordance with the usual rules of adjudication of fact questions — burden of proof, weight, credibility, benefit of the doubt, etc. ... “New” evidence is that which is not merely cumulative of other evidence of record. “Material” evidence is that which is relevant to and probative of the issue at hand and which, as this Court stated in Colvin , ... must be of sufficient weight or significance (assuming its credibility) that there is a reasonable possibility that the new evidence, when viewed in the context of all the evidence, both new and old, would change the outcome.”
    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.