Smith v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 38 U.S.C. § 1112 · 38 U.S.C. § 5107 · 38 U.S.C. § 5110 · 38 U.S.C. § 7104
Relies on United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · William Marbury v. James Madison · Gilbert v. Derwinski · Masors v. Derwinski · Suttmann v. Brown
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In the interest of completeness, the Court notes that our holding that the BVA did not commit legal error in refusing to award a 1972 effective date or a 20% rating for tinnitus should not be construed as having any bearing upon the substantive merits of these issues. That the BVA was not under a legal duty to address them does not mean that the appellant would be barred from raising them anew before the agency of original jurisdiction. Indeed, at oral argument, counsel for both parties indicated that the appellant has followed that route.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Smith 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.