Comer v. Peake’s Empirical Analysis
552 F.3d 1362 · 2009
Citation profile
17 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently May 2024 · most notably Henderson v. Shinseki (2009), Robinson v. Shinseki (2009)
17 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 36 U.S.C. § 50302 · 38 U.S.C. § 5103 · 38 U.S.C. § 5109A · 38 U.S.C. § 5110 · 38 U.S.C. § 7112 · 38 U.S.C. § 7292
Relies on Singleton v. Wulff · Hughes v. Rowe · Forshey v. Principi · Sanders v. Nicholson · Cook v. Principi
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Because of the paternalistic nature of the proceedings, the [BVA], like the [Regional Office], is required to fully and sympathetically develop the veteran's claim to its optimum before deciding it on the merits.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If the Statement of the Case ... addressed several issues, the Substantive Appeal must either indicate that the appeal is being perfected as to all of those issues or must specifically identify the issues appealed. The Substantive Appeal should set out specific arguments relating to errors of fact or law made by the [RO] in reaching the determination, or determinations, being appealed. To the extent feasible, the argument should be related to specific items in the Statement of the Case.... The Board will construe such arguments in a liberal manner for purposes of determining whether they raise issues on appeal, but the Board may dismiss any appeal which fails to allege specific error of fact or law in the determination, or determinations, being appealed. The Board will not presume that the appellant agrees with any statement of fact contained in a Statement of the Case ... which is not specifically contested.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Robinson v. Shinseki“did not state specifically that he was entitled to an earlier effective date for his TDIU award, his claim for an increased rating and an earlier effective date for his PTSD benefits, coupled with the persuasive and pervasive evidence in the record demonstrating his unemployability, was sufficient to raise the issue of his entitlement to an earlier effective date for his TDIU award as well.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Shea v. Wilkie
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.