Cluster 702
green
· 99 citation events
across 3 courts.
Showing the 50 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 2011 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
201120182026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
Mathis v. McDonald (2016)
A year later, we expanded on Rizzo in Bastien v. Shinseki, 599 F.3d 1301, 1306 (Fed.
green
Browder v. Wilkie (2018)
Cir. 2010); see id. (“The evalua- tion and weighing of evidence and the drawing of appro- priate inferences from it are factual determinations committed to the discretion of the fact-finder.”); see also Prinkey v. Shinseki, 735 F.3d 1375, 1383 (Fed.
“The evalua- tion and weighing of evidence and the drawing of appro- priate inferences from it are factual determinations committed to the discretion of the fact-finder.”
green
Mathis v. McDonald (2016)
In Bastien v. Shinseki, 599 F.3d 1301, 1306 (Fed.
green
King v. Dept. Of Veterans Affairs (2012)
Cir. 2008); see also Bastien v. Shinseki, 599 F.3d 1301, 1306 (Fed.
“The evaluation and weighing of evidence and the drawing of appropriate inferences from it are factual determinations committed to the discretion of the fact-finder. We lack jurisdiction to review these determinations.”
green
Howlett v. Shinseki (2011)
“Unless an appeal from the Veterans Court ‘presents a constitutional issue,’ this court ‘may not review (A) challenge to a factual determi *927 nation, or (B) a challenge to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case.’ ” Bastien v. Shinseki, 599 F.3d 1301, 1305 (Fed.Cir.2010) (citing 38 U.S.C. § 7292 (d)).
green
Howard v. Wilkie (2020)
Bastien v. Shinseki, 599 F.3d 1301, 1306 (Fed.
green
Hollins v. Wilkie (2020)
Id. § 7292(d)(2); Bastien v. Shinseki, 599 F.3d 1301, 1306 (Fed.
“The evaluation and weighing of ev- idence and the drawing of appropriate inferences from it are factual determinations committed to the discretion of the fact-finder. We lack jurisdiction to review these deter- minations.”
green
Johnson v. Wilkie (2019)
See Bastien v. Shinseki, 599 F.3d 1301, 1306 (Fed.
“The evaluation and weighing JOHNSON v. WILKIE 5 of evidence and the drawing of appropriate inferences from it are factual determinations committed to the discretion of the fact-finder.”
green
El Malik v. Wilkie (2019)
See, e.g., Bastien v. Shinseki, 599 F.3d 1301, 1306 (Fed.
“The evaluation and weighing of evidence and the drawing of appropriate infer- ences from it are factual determinations committed to the discretion of the fact-finder. We lack jurisdiction to review these determinations.”
green
Altovilla v. Wilkie (2019)
See Bas- tien v. Shinseki, 599 F.3d 1301, 1306 (Fed.
“The evaluation and weighing of evidence and the drawing of ap- propriate inferences from it are factual determinations committed to the discretion of the fact-finder. We lack ju- risdiction to review these determinations.”
green
Quilon v. Wilkie (2019)
However, we lack jurisdiction to review “[t]he evaluation and weighing of evidence and the drawing of appropriate influences from it.” Bastien v. Shinseki, 599 F.3d 1301, 1305 (Fed.
green
Lake v. Wilkie (2019)
See Bastien v. Shinseki, 599 F.3d 1301, 1306 (Fed.
“The evaluation and weighing of evidence [related to entitlement to veterans’ benefits] and the drawing of ap- propriate inferences from it are factual determinations committed to the discretion of the fact-finder. We lack ju- risdiction to review these determinations.”
green
Viale v. Wilkie (2018)
See Bastien v. Shinseki, 599 F.3d 1301, 1306 (Fed.
“The evaluation and weighing of evi- dence and the drawing of appropriate inferences from it are factual determinations committed to the discretion of the fact-finder. We lack jurisdiction to review these determinations.”
green
King v. Wilkie (2018)
See Bastien v. Shinseki, 599 F.3d 1301, 1306 (Fed.
“The evaluation and weighing of evidence and the draw- ing of appropriate inferences from it are factual determi- nations committed to the discretion of the fact-finder. We lack jurisdiction to review these determinations.”
green
MacDonald v. Shulkin (2018)
We lack jurisdiction to review these determinations.” Bastien v. Shinseki, 599 F.3d 1301, 1306 (Fed.
green
Melvin v. Shulkin (2017)
Our jurisdiction, however, is limited; we cannot review “a challenge to a factual determination” or “a challenge to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case.” Id. § 7292(d)(2); see also Bastien v. Shinseki, 599 F.3d 1301, 1306 (Fed.
“The evaluation and weighing of evidence and the drawing of appropriate inferences from it are factual determinations committed to the discretion of the fact-finder. We lack jurisdiction to review those determinations.”
green
Gazelle v. Shulkin (2017)
See Bastien v. Shinseki, 599 F.3d 1301, 1306 (Fed.
“The evaluation and weighing of evidence and the drawing of appropriate inferences from it are factual determinations committed to the discretion of the fact-finder. We lack jurisdiction to review these determinations.”
green
Arroyo-Jusino v. McDonald (2016)
See Bastien v. Shinseki, 599 F.3d 1301, 1306 (Fed.
“The evaluation and weighing of evidence .., are factual determinations committed to the discretion of the factfinder. We lack jurisdiction to review those determinations.”
green
Brown v. McDonald (2016)
We lack jurisdiction to review these determinations.” Bastien v. Shinseki, 599 F.3d 1301, 1306 (Fed.
green
Vann v. McDonald (2015)
Bastien v. Shinseki, 599 F.3d 1301, 1306 (Fed.Cir.2010) (“The evaluation and weighing of evidence and the drawing of appropriate inferences from it are factual determinations committed to the discretion of the fact-finder.”).
green
El Malik v. Shinseki (2014)
See 38 U.S.C. § 7292 (d)(2); Bastien v. Shinseki, 599 F.3d 1301, 1306 (Fed.Cir.2010).
green
Dixon v. Shinseki (2014)
Although “[t]he Veterans Court has broad discretion to interpret and apply its Rules of Practice and Procedure,” Bastien v. Shinseki, 599 F.3d 1301, 1807 (Fed.Cir.2010), we see no reasonable justification for the court’s refusal to grant an extension of time here.
green
Winsett v. Shinseki (2013)
“The Veterans Court has broad discretion to interpret and apply its Rules of Practice and Procedure.” Bastien v. Shinseki, 599 F.3d 1301, 1307 (Fed.Cir.2010) (citing Car bino v. West, 168 F.3d 32, 35 (Fed.Cir.1999)); Lynch v. Shinseki, 476 Fed.Appx. 401, 407 (Fed.Cir.2012) (“The Veterans Court’s enforcement of its own procedural rules is entitled to substantial discretion”).
green
Wilhoite v. Shinseki (2013)
Bastien v. Shinseki, 599 F.3d 1301, 1306 (Fed.Cir.2010) (“The evaluation and weighing of evidence and the drawing of appropriate inferences from it are factual determinations committed to the discretion of the fact-finder.”).
green
Geib v. Shinseki (2013)
See 38 U.S.C. § 7292 (d)(2); Bastien v. Shinseki, 599 F.3d 1301, 1306 (Fed.Cir.2010).
green
Buckner v. Shinseki (2013)
Bastien v. Shinseki, 599 F.3d 1301, 1306 (Fed.Cir.2010) (“The evaluation and weighing of evidence and the drawing of appropriate inferences from it are factual determinations committed to the discretion of the fact-finder.
green
George Prewitt v. Shinseki (2013)
The CAVC, however, “has broad discretion to interpret and apply its Rules of Practice and Procedure,” Bastien v. Shinseki, 599 F.3d 1301, 1307 (Fed.Cir.2010), and Mr. Prewitt has not *1026 provided any reason to believe that the CAVC abused that discretion in applying its rules in this case.
green
Deloach v. Shinseki (2013)
Bastien v. Shinseki, 599 F.3d 1301, 1306 (Fed.Cir.2010).
green
Emad v. Dept. Of Veterans Affairs (2012)
See Bastien v. Shinseki, 599 F.3d 1301, 1306 (Fed.
“The evaluation and weighing of evidence and the drawing of appropriate inferences from it are factual determinations committed to the discretion of the factfinder. We lack jurisdiction to review such determinations.”
green
Trost v. Dept. Of Veterans Affairs (2012)
Bdstien v. Shinseki, 599 F.3d 1301, 1306 (Fed.
green
Washington v. Dept. Of Veterans Affairs (2011)
Absent a constitutional issue, this court “may not review (A) a challenge to a factual determination, or (B) a challenge to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292 (d)(2); Bastien v. Shinseki, 599 F.3d 1301, 1305 (Fed.Cir.2010).
green
Wilson v. Dept. Of Veterans Affairs (2011)
We lack jurisdiction to review these determinations.” Bastien v. Shinseki, 599 F.3d 1301, 1306 (Fed.Cir.2010).
green
08-28 136 (2016)
See Bastien v. Shinseki, 599 F.3d 1301, 1306 (Fed.
"The evaluation and weighing of evidence and the drawing of appropriate inferences from it are factual determinations committed to the discretion of the fact finder."
green
190702-10720 (2019)
Bastien v. Shinseki, 599 F.3d 1301, 1306 (Fed.
“The evaluation and weighing of evidence and the drawing of appropriate inferences from it are factual determinations committed to the discretion of the fact finder.”
green
181107-1115 (2019)
Bastien v. Shinseki, 599 F.3d 1301, 1306 (Fed.
“The evaluation and weighing of evidence and the drawing of appropriate inferences from it are factual determinations committed to the discretion of the fact finder.”
green
10-13 674 (2018)
Cir. 2011); Bastien v. Shinseki, 599 F.3d 1301, 1307 (Fed.Cir. 2010).
green
13-11 846 (2017)
Bastien v. Shinseki, 599 F.3d 1301, 1306 (Fed.
"The evaluation and weighing of evidence and the drawing of appropriate inferences from it are factual determinations committed to the discretion of the fact finder."
green
09-44 974 (2017)
Bastien v. Shinseki, 599 F.3d 1301, 1306 (Fed.
"The evaluation and weighing of evidence and the drawing of appropriate inferences from it are factual determinations committed to the discretion of the fact finder."
green
14-27 194 (2017)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979) (stating it is 'the responsibility of the trier of fact fairly to . . . draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts"); Bastien v. Shinseki, 599 F.3d 1301, 1306 (Fed.
"The evaluation and weighing of evidence and the drawing of appropriate inferences from it are factual determinations committed to the discretion of the fact finder."
green
10-44 923 (2017)
See 38 U.S.C.A. § 1154 (b) (2016); see also Bastien v. Shinseki, 599 F.3d 1301, 1306 (Fed.
"The evaluation and weighing of evidence and the drawing of appropriate inferences from it are factual determinations committed to the discretion of the fact finder."
green
05-34 163 (2017)
See Bastien v. Shinseki, 599 F.3d 1301, 1306 (Fed.
"The evaluation and weighing of evidence and the drawing of appropriate inferences from it are factual determinations committed to the discretion of the fact finder."
green
10-29 487 (2017)
Cir. 2011); Bastien v. Shinseki, 599 F.3d 1301, 1307 (Fed.Cir. 2010); Rizzo v. Shinseki, 580 F.3d 1288, 1290-91 (Fed.
green
12-21 034 (2016)
Bastien v. Shinseki, 599 F.3d 1301, 1306 (Fed.
"The evaluation and weighing of evidence and the drawing of appropriate inferences from it are factual determinations committed to the discretion of the fact finder."
green
12-21 092 (2014)
Bastien v. Shinseki, 599 F.3d 1301, 1306 (Fed.
"The evaluation and weighing of evidence and the drawing of appropriate inferences from it are factual determinations committed to the discretion of the fact finder."
green
10-32 011 (2014)
Bastien v. Shinseki, 599 F.3d 1301, 1306 (Fed.
"The evaluation and weighing of evidence and the drawing of appropriate inferences from it are factual determinations committed to the discretion of the fact finder."
green
08-13 231 (2014)
See Bastien v. Shinseki, 599 F.3d 1301, 1306 (Fed.
"The evaluation and weighing of evidence and the drawing of appropriate inferences from it are factual determinations committed to the discretion of the fact finder."
green
12-04 977 (2014)
Bastien v. Shinseki, 599 F.3d 1301, 1306 (Fed.
"The evaluation and weighing of evidence and the drawing of appropriate inferences from it are factual determinations committed to the discretion of the fact finder."
green
James A. Nohr v. Robert A. McDonald (2014)
Given that a veteran challenging the qualifications of a VA-selected physician must set forth specific reasons why the veteran believes the expert is not qualified to give a competent opinion, see Bastien v. Shinseki 599 F.3d 1301, 1307 (Fed.Cir.2010), Mr. Nohr’s request for Dr. Feng’s curriculum vitae, made while his case was still pending at the Board, reasonably sought information necessary to overcome the presumption of competence generally afforded to VA-selected physic…
green
Ouida Wise v. Eric K. Shinseki (2014)
Indeed, the reason that the Federal Circuit gave for imposing that requirement — notifying the Board of the perceived shortcoming in the medical professional’s competence so that it may “evaluate and determine the validity of the challenge to expert’s qualifications,” Bastien v. Shinseki, 599 F.3d 1301, 1307 (Fed.Cir.2010) — is not present here because the medical opinion itself alerts the Board as to that shortcoming.
green
Swisher v. Wilkie (2019)
See Bastien v. Shinseki, 599 F.3d 1301, 1306 (Fed.