Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 528 F.3d 1322 - Gurley v. Peake

Gurley v. Peake’s Empirical Analysis

528 F.3d 1322 · 2008

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
April 2023
most recently cited

7 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently April 2023

7 federal appellate ·

110200820102020decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 2412 · 38 U.S.C. § 7292

Relies on Buckhannon Board and Care Home Incs v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources · Hanrahan v. Hampton · Hewitt v. Helms · Shalala v. Schaefer · Sullivan v. Hudson

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

  1. “The parties agree that remand is warranted to comply with the Court’s holding in Hams v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 180 (1991). Where the facts underlying separate claims are “intimately connected”, the interests of judicial economy and avoidance of piecemeal litigation re quire that the claims be adjudicated together. Smith v. Gober, 236 F.3d 1370, 1373 (Fed.Cir.2001). The Court has held that where a decision on one issue would have a “significant impact” upon another, and that impact in turn “could render any review by this Court of the decision [on the other claim] meaningless and a waste of judicial resources,” the two claims are inextricably intertwined. Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 180, 183 (1991).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “where the plaintiff secures a remand requiring further agency proceedings because of alleged error by the agency, the plaintiff qualifies as a prevailing party (1) without regard to the outcome of the agency proceedings where there has been no retention of jurisdiction by the court, or (2) when successful in the remand proceedings where there has been a retention of jurisdiction.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “remands by the courts of appeals to district courts for further proceedings do not constitute relief on the merits or confer prevailing party status on the successful party.”
    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.