Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 964 F.2d 1124 - Strott v. Derwinski

Strott v. Derwinski’s Empirical Analysis

964 F.2d 1124 · 1992

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
August 2000
most recently cited

Relationships

Relies on Livingston v. Derwinski · Prenzler v. Derwinski · Whitt v. Derwinski · Strott 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Is a Form 1-9 hearing before personnel in the field office an action from which a petitioner may file a NOD, and thus obtain jurisdiction before the Veterans Court? ... Since the field office is acting in an appellate role, it is no longer the “agency of original jurisdiction.” Accordingly, any written disagreement with that decision is not a valid NOD, 38 U.S.C. § 7105 and 38 C.F.R. § 19.118 , and therefore cannot function as the statutory basis for Veterans Court jurisdiction. To the extent that Whitt v. Der winski suggests otherwise, [citation omitted], it is overruled.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “A written communication from a claimant or his or her representative expressing dissatisfaction or disagreement with an adjudicative determination by the agency of original jurisdiction and a desire to contest the result -will constitute a Notice of Disagreement. While special wording is not required, the Notice of Disagreement must be in terms which can be reasonably construed as disagreement with that determination for appellate review.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[i]f ... a hearing and the subsequent decision of July 17, 1989 qualify as an “adjudicative determination of an agency of original jurisdiction,” then [another NOD] would be a jurisdiction-creating NOD. However, we hold that the June 5, 1989 hearing is part of the appellate process and as such, could not provide grounds for a jurisdiction-creating NOD.”
    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.