Austin v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently December 2016 · most notably Allday v. Brown (1995), Holliday v. Principi (2001)
1 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 38 U.S.C. § 7104 · 38 U.S.C. § 7109 · 38 U.S.C. § 7110 · 38 U.S.C. § 7252 · 38 U.S.C. § 7261 · 5 U.S.C. § 553 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946)
Relies on Withrow v. Larkin · United States Accardi v. Shaughnessy · Morton v. Ruiz · Vitarelli v. Seaton · Yamamoto 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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A [Board] decision which relies upon a [Board] medical adviser’s opinion obtained by a process that does not ensure an impartial opinion violates Thurber [v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 119 (1993) ]-type fair process. We hold that basic fair play requires that evidence be procured by the agency in an impartial, unbiased, and neutral manner. The process employed here cannot be sustained as fair.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The Court premised its holding in Thurber , in part, upon considerations of fair process. The Supreme Court case of Gonzales v. United States, 348 U.S. 407 [, 75 S.Ct. 409 , 99 L.Ed. 467 ] (1955), referenced in Thurber , is perhaps most aptly illustrative of this fair process principle. In Gonzales the Supreme Court held that despite the silence of the applicable statute and regulations as to a particular procedural requirement, such requirement was implicit in the statute and regulations when “viewed against our underlying concepts of procedural regularity and basic fair play.” Thurber, 5 Vet.App. at 123 (quoting Gonzales, 348 U.S. at 412 , 75 S.Ct. 409 ) (emphasis added).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Thurber held that the BVA must afford “a reasonable opportunity for the claimant to respond to [evidence developed or obtained by the BVA].” Thurber, 5 Vet.App. at 126 . The response to which the claimant was entitled, as contemplated by Thurber , was not limited to argument or comment, but also included the claimant’s right to submit additional evidence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Carpenito 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.