Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 8 VETAPP 359 - Tablazon v. Brown

Tablazon v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis

1995

Citation profile

39
cited by 39 later decisions
December 2016
most recently cited

How this case has been cited

Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently December 2016 · most notably Cook v. Principi (2002), Hayre v. West (1999)

180199520002010decided

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. § 7105 · 38 U.S.C. § 7266

Relies on EF v. Derwinski · Ashley v. Derwinski · Rowell v. Principi · Hauck v. Brown · Kuo 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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[i]n Tablazon v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 359 (1995), [the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims] held that when [the] 'VA has failed to procedurally comply with statutorily mandated requirements, a claim does not become final for purposes of appeal to the [Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims].'”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[g]iven the pendency of the prior appeal to the Board, we conclude that there is no final Board decision before us for review.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “never received notification of any denial . . . , the one-year period within which to file an NOD, which commences with 'the date of mailing of notice of the result of initial review or determination,' did not begin to run”
    1 later decision 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.