Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases (
9 in the last 5 years), 2019–2026 · leading case:
Beaudette v. McDonough, 93 F.4th 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2024).
Beaudette v. McDonough, 93 F.4th 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2024).
· cites it 10× “38 U.S.C. § 1720G(a)(2), (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(7).”
Vet. Warriors, Inc. v. Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 29 F.4th 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
· cites it 21× “38 U.S.C. § 1720G(a) (emphasis added). A veteran who is “in need of personal care services” may qualify as an arguments, just asserting the rule without explanation.”
Tapia v. United States, No. 19-108 (Fed. Cl. Dec. 16, 2019).
· cites it 37× “Plaintiffs’ complaint seeks compensation for alleged wrongful determinations under the “Program of comprehensive assistance for family caregivers” (hereinafter, the Family Caregivers Program), which is administered by the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) of the United States…”
Vet. Warriors, Inc. v. Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, No. 21-1378 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 25, 2022).
· cites it 21× “38 U.S.C. § 1720G(a) (emphasis added). A veteran who is “in need of personal care services” may qualify as an arguments, just asserting the rule without explanation.”
Beaudette v. McDonough, No. 22-1264 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 27, 2024).
· cites it 10× “38 U.S.C. § 1720G(a)(2), (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(7).”
Jeremy Beaudette v. Denis McDonough, No. 20-4961 (Vet. App. Apr. 19, 2021).
· cites it 8× “1130 , 1132-40 (codified principally at 38 U.S.C. § 1720G). From the outset, VA has taken the position that Congress meant to insulate determinations under the Caregiver Program from review by the Board and, consequently, the judiciary.”
Latham v. Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, No. 25-1540 (Fed. Cir. June 16, 2026).
· cites it 5× “I Congress created the Program of Comprehensive Assis- tance for Family Caregivers (“PCAFC”) in the Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010 (“Care- givers Act”), which is codified at 38 U.S.C. § 1720G. See 124 Stat. 1132 . VA regulations governing the…”
Snowden v. U.S. Dep't of Vets. Affairs, No. 1:20-cv-02913 (D. Md. Oct. 8, 2021).
· cites it 2× “In their Opposition, the Snowdens assert that Alfred received benefits under the Caregiver Support Program, 38 U.S.C. § 1720G, and the Veterans Community Care Program, 38 U.”
Am Anda Jane Wolfe & P Eter E. Boerschinger Individually & v. Denis McDonough, No. 18-6091 (Vet. App. May 13, 2021).
“Rejecting the Secretary's argument that subsection 1720G(c)(1) excluded Caregiver Program decisions from judicial review, we found that the Secretary's statutory interpretation was supported by only "oblique[] referenc[e] [to] a discrete agency regulation," which was…”
Paul Cardoza v. Denis McDonough, No. 20-6380 (Vet. App. July 10, 2024).
“12 Case: 20-6380 Page: 13 of 13 Filed: 07/10/2024 at 103, 108 (resolving the legal question at issue—whether 38 U.S.C. § 1720G(c)(1) stripped the Board of jurisdiction to review Caregiver Program benefits—to grant a writ that compelled the Board to review the petitioner's claim).”
38 U.S.C. § 1720G(a): 3 cases
Vet. Warriors, Inc. v. Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 29 F.4th 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
“38 U.S.C. § 1720G(a) (emphasis added). A veteran who is “in need of personal care services” may qualify as an arguments, just asserting the rule without explanation.”
Vet. Warriors, Inc. v. Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, No. 21-1378 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 25, 2022).
“38 U.S.C. § 1720G(a) (emphasis added). A veteran who is “in need of personal care services” may qualify as an arguments, just asserting the rule without explanation.”
Tapia v. United States, No. 19-108 (Fed. Cl. Dec. 16, 2019).
“Plaintiffs’ complaint seeks compensation for alleged wrongful determinations under the “Program of comprehensive assistance for family caregivers” (hereinafter, the Family Caregivers Program), which is administered by the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) of the United States…”
38 U.S.C. § 1720G(a)(1)(A): 3 cases
Vet. Warriors, Inc. v. Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 29 F.4th 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
“38 U.S.C. § 1720G(a) (emphasis added). A veteran who is “in need of personal care services” may qualify as an arguments, just asserting the rule without explanation.”
Tapia v. United States, No. 19-108 (Fed. Cl. Dec. 16, 2019).
“Plaintiffs’ complaint seeks compensation for alleged wrongful determinations under the “Program of comprehensive assistance for family caregivers” (hereinafter, the Family Caregivers Program), which is administered by the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) of the United States…”
Vet. Warriors, Inc. v. Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, No. 21-1378 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 25, 2022).
“38 U.S.C. § 1720G(a) (emphasis added). A veteran who is “in need of personal care services” may qualify as an arguments, just asserting the rule without explanation.”
38 U.S.C. § 1720G(a)(1)(B): 1 case
Tapia v. United States, No. 19-108 (Fed. Cl. Dec. 16, 2019).
“Plaintiffs’ complaint seeks compensation for alleged wrongful determinations under the “Program of comprehensive assistance for family caregivers” (hereinafter, the Family Caregivers Program), which is administered by the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) of the United States…”
38 U.S.C. § 1720G(a)(2): 6 cases
Vet. Warriors, Inc. v. Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 29 F.4th 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
“38 U.S.C. § 1720G(a) (emphasis added). A veteran who is “in need of personal care services” may qualify as an arguments, just asserting the rule without explanation.”
Tapia v. United States, No. 19-108 (Fed. Cl. Dec. 16, 2019).
“Plaintiffs’ complaint seeks compensation for alleged wrongful determinations under the “Program of comprehensive assistance for family caregivers” (hereinafter, the Family Caregivers Program), which is administered by the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) of the United States…”
Jeremy Beaudette v. Denis McDonough, No. 20-4961 (Vet. App. Apr. 19, 2021).
“1130 , 1132-40 (codified principally at 38 U.S.C. § 1720G). From the outset, VA has taken the position that Congress meant to insulate determinations under the Caregiver Program from review by the Board and, consequently, the judiciary.”
Vet. Warriors, Inc. v. Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, No. 21-1378 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 25, 2022).
“38 U.S.C. § 1720G(a) (emphasis added). A veteran who is “in need of personal care services” may qualify as an arguments, just asserting the rule without explanation.”
38 U.S.C. § 1720G(a)(2)(A): 3 cases
Vet. Warriors, Inc. v. Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 29 F.4th 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
“38 U.S.C. § 1720G(a) (emphasis added). A veteran who is “in need of personal care services” may qualify as an arguments, just asserting the rule without explanation.”
Jeremy Beaudette v. Denis McDonough, No. 20-4961 (Vet. App. Apr. 19, 2021).
“1130 , 1132-40 (codified principally at 38 U.S.C. § 1720G). From the outset, VA has taken the position that Congress meant to insulate determinations under the Caregiver Program from review by the Board and, consequently, the judiciary.”
Vet. Warriors, Inc. v. Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, No. 21-1378 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 25, 2022).
“38 U.S.C. § 1720G(a) (emphasis added). A veteran who is “in need of personal care services” may qualify as an arguments, just asserting the rule without explanation.”
38 U.S.C. § 1720G(a)(2)(B): 2 cases
Vet. Warriors, Inc. v. Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 29 F.4th 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
“38 U.S.C. § 1720G(a) (emphasis added). A veteran who is “in need of personal care services” may qualify as an arguments, just asserting the rule without explanation.”
Vet. Warriors, Inc. v. Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, No. 21-1378 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 25, 2022).
“38 U.S.C. § 1720G(a) (emphasis added). A veteran who is “in need of personal care services” may qualify as an arguments, just asserting the rule without explanation.”
38 U.S.C. § 1720G(a)(2)(C): 3 cases
Vet. Warriors, Inc. v. Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 29 F.4th 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
“38 U.S.C. § 1720G(a) (emphasis added). A veteran who is “in need of personal care services” may qualify as an arguments, just asserting the rule without explanation.”
Vet. Warriors, Inc. v. Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, No. 21-1378 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 25, 2022).
“38 U.S.C. § 1720G(a) (emphasis added). A veteran who is “in need of personal care services” may qualify as an arguments, just asserting the rule without explanation.”
Jeremy Beaudette v. Denis McDonough, No. 20-4961 (Vet. App. Apr. 19, 2021).
“1130 , 1132-40 (codified principally at 38 U.S.C. § 1720G). From the outset, VA has taken the position that Congress meant to insulate determinations under the Caregiver Program from review by the Board and, consequently, the judiciary.”
38 U.S.C. § 1720G(a)(2)(C)(i): 3 cases
Vet. Warriors, Inc. v. Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 29 F.4th 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
“38 U.S.C. § 1720G(a) (emphasis added). A veteran who is “in need of personal care services” may qualify as an arguments, just asserting the rule without explanation.”
Vet. Warriors, Inc. v. Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, No. 21-1378 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 25, 2022).
“38 U.S.C. § 1720G(a) (emphasis added). A veteran who is “in need of personal care services” may qualify as an arguments, just asserting the rule without explanation.”
Latham v. Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, No. 25-1540 (Fed. Cir. June 16, 2026).
“I Congress created the Program of Comprehensive Assis- tance for Family Caregivers (“PCAFC”) in the Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010 (“Care- givers Act”), which is codified at 38 U.S.C. § 1720G. See 124 Stat. 1132 . VA regulations governing the…”
38 U.S.C. § 1720G(a)(3): 5 cases
Vet. Warriors, Inc. v. Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 29 F.4th 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
“38 U.S.C. § 1720G(a) (emphasis added). A veteran who is “in need of personal care services” may qualify as an arguments, just asserting the rule without explanation.”
Tapia v. United States, No. 19-108 (Fed. Cl. Dec. 16, 2019).
“Plaintiffs’ complaint seeks compensation for alleged wrongful determinations under the “Program of comprehensive assistance for family caregivers” (hereinafter, the Family Caregivers Program), which is administered by the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) of the United States…”
Jeremy Beaudette v. Denis McDonough, No. 20-4961 (Vet. App. Apr. 19, 2021).
“1130 , 1132-40 (codified principally at 38 U.S.C. § 1720G). From the outset, VA has taken the position that Congress meant to insulate determinations under the Caregiver Program from review by the Board and, consequently, the judiciary.”
Vet. Warriors, Inc. v. Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, No. 21-1378 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 25, 2022).
“38 U.S.C. § 1720G(a) (emphasis added). A veteran who is “in need of personal care services” may qualify as an arguments, just asserting the rule without explanation.”
Latham v. Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, No. 25-1540 (Fed. Cir. June 16, 2026).
“I Congress created the Program of Comprehensive Assis- tance for Family Caregivers (“PCAFC”) in the Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010 (“Care- givers Act”), which is codified at 38 U.S.C. § 1720G. See 124 Stat. 1132 . VA regulations governing the…”
38 U.S.C. § 1720G(a)(3)(A): 2 cases
Beaudette v. McDonough, No. 22-1264 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 27, 2024).
“38 U.S.C. § 1720G(a)(2), (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(7).”
38 U.S.C. § 1720G(a)(3)(A)(i): 1 case
Tapia v. United States, No. 19-108 (Fed. Cl. Dec. 16, 2019).
“Plaintiffs’ complaint seeks compensation for alleged wrongful determinations under the “Program of comprehensive assistance for family caregivers” (hereinafter, the Family Caregivers Program), which is administered by the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) of the United States…”
38 U.S.C. § 1720G(a)(3)(A)(ii): 3 cases
Vet. Warriors, Inc. v. Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 29 F.4th 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
“38 U.S.C. § 1720G(a) (emphasis added). A veteran who is “in need of personal care services” may qualify as an arguments, just asserting the rule without explanation.”
Tapia v. United States, No. 19-108 (Fed. Cl. Dec. 16, 2019).
“Plaintiffs’ complaint seeks compensation for alleged wrongful determinations under the “Program of comprehensive assistance for family caregivers” (hereinafter, the Family Caregivers Program), which is administered by the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) of the United States…”
Vet. Warriors, Inc. v. Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, No. 21-1378 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 25, 2022).
“38 U.S.C. § 1720G(a) (emphasis added). A veteran who is “in need of personal care services” may qualify as an arguments, just asserting the rule without explanation.”
38 U.S.C. § 1720G(a)(3)(C): 2 cases
Vet. Warriors, Inc. v. Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 29 F.4th 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
“38 U.S.C. § 1720G(a) (emphasis added). A veteran who is “in need of personal care services” may qualify as an arguments, just asserting the rule without explanation.”
Vet. Warriors, Inc. v. Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, No. 21-1378 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 25, 2022).
“38 U.S.C. § 1720G(a) (emphasis added). A veteran who is “in need of personal care services” may qualify as an arguments, just asserting the rule without explanation.”
38 U.S.C. § 1720G(a)(3)(C)(i): 3 cases
Vet. Warriors, Inc. v. Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 29 F.4th 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
“38 U.S.C. § 1720G(a) (emphasis added). A veteran who is “in need of personal care services” may qualify as an arguments, just asserting the rule without explanation.”
Tapia v. United States, No. 19-108 (Fed. Cl. Dec. 16, 2019).
“Plaintiffs’ complaint seeks compensation for alleged wrongful determinations under the “Program of comprehensive assistance for family caregivers” (hereinafter, the Family Caregivers Program), which is administered by the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) of the United States…”
Vet. Warriors, Inc. v. Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, No. 21-1378 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 25, 2022).
“38 U.S.C. § 1720G(a) (emphasis added). A veteran who is “in need of personal care services” may qualify as an arguments, just asserting the rule without explanation.”
38 U.S.C. § 1720G(a)(3)(C)(ii): 2 cases
Vet. Warriors, Inc. v. Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 29 F.4th 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
“38 U.S.C. § 1720G(a) (emphasis added). A veteran who is “in need of personal care services” may qualify as an arguments, just asserting the rule without explanation.”
Vet. Warriors, Inc. v. Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, No. 21-1378 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 25, 2022).
“38 U.S.C. § 1720G(a) (emphasis added). A veteran who is “in need of personal care services” may qualify as an arguments, just asserting the rule without explanation.”
38 U.S.C. § 1720G(a)(4): 3 cases
Tapia v. United States, No. 19-108 (Fed. Cl. Dec. 16, 2019).
“Plaintiffs’ complaint seeks compensation for alleged wrongful determinations under the “Program of comprehensive assistance for family caregivers” (hereinafter, the Family Caregivers Program), which is administered by the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) of the United States…”
Beaudette v. McDonough, No. 22-1264 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 27, 2024).
“38 U.S.C. § 1720G(a)(2), (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(7).”
38 U.S.C. § 1720G(a)(5): 1 case
Tapia v. United States, No. 19-108 (Fed. Cl. Dec. 16, 2019).
“Plaintiffs’ complaint seeks compensation for alleged wrongful determinations under the “Program of comprehensive assistance for family caregivers” (hereinafter, the Family Caregivers Program), which is administered by the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) of the United States…”
38 U.S.C. § 1720G(a)(6)(A): 1 case
Tapia v. United States, No. 19-108 (Fed. Cl. Dec. 16, 2019).
“Plaintiffs’ complaint seeks compensation for alleged wrongful determinations under the “Program of comprehensive assistance for family caregivers” (hereinafter, the Family Caregivers Program), which is administered by the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) of the United States…”
38 U.S.C. § 1720G(a)(6)(B): 1 case
Tapia v. United States, No. 19-108 (Fed. Cl. Dec. 16, 2019).
“Plaintiffs’ complaint seeks compensation for alleged wrongful determinations under the “Program of comprehensive assistance for family caregivers” (hereinafter, the Family Caregivers Program), which is administered by the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) of the United States…”
38 U.S.C. § 1720G(a)(7)(A): 1 case
Tapia v. United States, No. 19-108 (Fed. Cl. Dec. 16, 2019).
“Plaintiffs’ complaint seeks compensation for alleged wrongful determinations under the “Program of comprehensive assistance for family caregivers” (hereinafter, the Family Caregivers Program), which is administered by the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) of the United States…”
38 U.S.C. § 1720G(a)(7)(B): 1 case
Tapia v. United States, No. 19-108 (Fed. Cl. Dec. 16, 2019).
“Plaintiffs’ complaint seeks compensation for alleged wrongful determinations under the “Program of comprehensive assistance for family caregivers” (hereinafter, the Family Caregivers Program), which is administered by the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) of the United States…”
38 U.S.C. § 1720G(a)(7)(C): 1 case
Tapia v. United States, No. 19-108 (Fed. Cl. Dec. 16, 2019).
“Plaintiffs’ complaint seeks compensation for alleged wrongful determinations under the “Program of comprehensive assistance for family caregivers” (hereinafter, the Family Caregivers Program), which is administered by the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) of the United States…”
38 U.S.C. § 1720G(a)(7)(D): 1 case
Tapia v. United States, No. 19-108 (Fed. Cl. Dec. 16, 2019).
“Plaintiffs’ complaint seeks compensation for alleged wrongful determinations under the “Program of comprehensive assistance for family caregivers” (hereinafter, the Family Caregivers Program), which is administered by the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) of the United States…”
38 U.S.C. § 1720G(a)(9)(C): 1 case
Latham v. Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, No. 25-1540 (Fed. Cir. June 16, 2026).
“I Congress created the Program of Comprehensive Assis- tance for Family Caregivers (“PCAFC”) in the Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010 (“Care- givers Act”), which is codified at 38 U.S.C. § 1720G. See 124 Stat. 1132 . VA regulations governing the…”
38 U.S.C. § 1720G(a)(9)(c): 2 cases
Vet. Warriors, Inc. v. Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 29 F.4th 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
“38 U.S.C. § 1720G(a) (emphasis added). A veteran who is “in need of personal care services” may qualify as an arguments, just asserting the rule without explanation.”
Vet. Warriors, Inc. v. Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, No. 21-1378 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 25, 2022).
“38 U.S.C. § 1720G(a) (emphasis added). A veteran who is “in need of personal care services” may qualify as an arguments, just asserting the rule without explanation.”
38 U.S.C. § 1720G(b)(3)(A)(i): 2 cases
Vet. Warriors, Inc. v. Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 29 F.4th 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
“38 U.S.C. § 1720G(a) (emphasis added). A veteran who is “in need of personal care services” may qualify as an arguments, just asserting the rule without explanation.”
Vet. Warriors, Inc. v. Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, No. 21-1378 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 25, 2022).
“38 U.S.C. § 1720G(a) (emphasis added). A veteran who is “in need of personal care services” may qualify as an arguments, just asserting the rule without explanation.”
38 U.S.C. § 1720G(c): 1 case
Tapia v. United States, No. 19-108 (Fed. Cl. Dec. 16, 2019).
“Plaintiffs’ complaint seeks compensation for alleged wrongful determinations under the “Program of comprehensive assistance for family caregivers” (hereinafter, the Family Caregivers Program), which is administered by the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) of the United States…”
38 U.S.C. § 1720G(c)(1): 5 cases
Beaudette v. McDonough, No. 22-1264 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 27, 2024).
“38 U.S.C. § 1720G(a)(2), (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(7).”
Jeremy Beaudette v. Denis McDonough, No. 20-4961 (Vet. App. Apr. 19, 2021).
“1130 , 1132-40 (codified principally at 38 U.S.C. § 1720G). From the outset, VA has taken the position that Congress meant to insulate determinations under the Caregiver Program from review by the Board and, consequently, the judiciary.”
Tapia v. United States, No. 19-108 (Fed. Cl. Dec. 16, 2019).
“Plaintiffs’ complaint seeks compensation for alleged wrongful determinations under the “Program of comprehensive assistance for family caregivers” (hereinafter, the Family Caregivers Program), which is administered by the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) of the United States…”
Paul Cardoza v. Denis McDonough, No. 20-6380 (Vet. App. July 10, 2024).
“12 Case: 20-6380 Page: 13 of 13 Filed: 07/10/2024 at 103, 108 (resolving the legal question at issue—whether 38 U.S.C. § 1720G(c)(1) stripped the Board of jurisdiction to review Caregiver Program benefits—to grant a writ that compelled the Board to review the petitioner's claim).”
38 U.S.C. § 1720G(c)(2): 1 case
Tapia v. United States, No. 19-108 (Fed. Cl. Dec. 16, 2019).
“Plaintiffs’ complaint seeks compensation for alleged wrongful determinations under the “Program of comprehensive assistance for family caregivers” (hereinafter, the Family Caregivers Program), which is administered by the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) of the United States…”
38 U.S.C. § 1720G(d)(4): 2 cases
Vet. Warriors, Inc. v. Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 29 F.4th 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
“38 U.S.C. § 1720G(a) (emphasis added). A veteran who is “in need of personal care services” may qualify as an arguments, just asserting the rule without explanation.”
Vet. Warriors, Inc. v. Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, No. 21-1378 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 25, 2022).
“38 U.S.C. § 1720G(a) (emphasis added). A veteran who is “in need of personal care services” may qualify as an arguments, just asserting the rule without explanation.”
38 U.S.C. § 1720G(d)(4)(A): 2 cases
Vet. Warriors, Inc. v. Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 29 F.4th 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
“38 U.S.C. § 1720G(a) (emphasis added). A veteran who is “in need of personal care services” may qualify as an arguments, just asserting the rule without explanation.”
Vet. Warriors, Inc. v. Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, No. 21-1378 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 25, 2022).
“38 U.S.C. § 1720G(a) (emphasis added). A veteran who is “in need of personal care services” may qualify as an arguments, just asserting the rule without explanation.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.