Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 6 VETAPP 218 - Sondel v. Brown

Sondel v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis

1994

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
January 2011
most recently cited

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently January 2011

60199420002010decided

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. § 1111

Relies on Russell v. Principi · EF v. Derwinski · Myers 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[A] claimant may not raise for the first time a specific CUE claim before this Court; such a request is for de novo review “over decisions that are not within our jurisdiction.” ... If ... the appellant has failed to raise the specific issue before the Board, the appeal must be dismissed as to that issue because it is improperly and improvidently raised for the first time before this Court.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
    e.g. Andre v. West
  2. “[T]here must be some indication in an appellant’s Substantive Appeal, other documents, or oral testimony that he wishes to raise a particular issue before the Board. The indication need not be express or highly detailed; it must only reasonably raise the issue. 38 C.F.R. § 20.202 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
    e.g. Andre v. West
  3. “unassailable premise that [the court does] not have jurisdiction to review a claim of CUE unless it has been previously adjudicated by the Board.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
    e.g. Andre v. Principi

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.