Walker v. Shinseki’s Empirical Analysis
708 F.3d 1331 · 2013
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 38 U.S.C. § 1101 · 38 U.S.C. § 1110 · 38 U.S.C. § 7292
Relies on Szemraj v. Principi · 10 Vet. App. 488 - Savage v. Gober · Shedden v. Principi · Daniel C. Summers,claimant-Appellant v. Hershel W. Gober, Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs · Groves v. Peake
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Even though § 3.303(b) does not contain a specific cross reference to § 3.309(a), we think a harmonious reading of §§ 3.303(b), 3.307(a) and 3.309(a) supports an implicit cross reference to § 3.309(a) in § 3.303(b). For the reasons explained above, we conclude that properly interpreted, and consistent with the Secretary’s interpretation, § 3.303(b) is constrained by § 3.309(a), regardless of the point in time when a veteran’s chronic disease is either shown or noted, in that the regulation is only available to establish ser vice connection for the specific chronic diseases listed in § 3.309(a).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.