Lasovick v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently December 2011
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. § 1110 · 38 U.S.C. § 1112 · 38 U.S.C. § 501 · 38 U.S.C. § 5108 · 38 U.S.C. § 7104 · 38 U.S.C. § 7251 · 38 U.S.C. § 7252 · 38 U.S.C. § 7261
Relies on Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner · Rav v. City of St Paul Minnesota · Adams v. Texas · Franklin v. Massachusetts · Zenith Radio Corp. v. United States
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If [an appellant] wishes to reasonably raise CUE there must be some degree of specificity as to what the alleged error is and, unless it is the kind of error ... that, if true, would be CUE on its face, persuasive reasons must be given as to why the result would have been manifestly different but for the alleged error.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Ternus v. Brown
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.