38 U.S.C. § 7264

Rules of practice and procedure

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 38 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) The proceedings of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims shall be conducted in accordance with such rules of practice and procedure as the Court prescribes.(b) The mailing of a pleading, decision, order, notice, or process in respect of proceedings before the Court shall be held sufficient service of such pleading, decision, order, notice, or process if it is properly addressed to the address furnished by the appellant on the notice of appeal filed under section 7266 of this title.(c)Section 455 of title 28 shall apply to judges and proceedings of the Court.(Added Pub. L. 100–687, div. A, title III, § 301(a), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4116, § 4064; renumbered § 7264 and amended Pub. L. 102–40, title IV, § 402(b)(1), (d)(1), May 7, 1991, 105 Stat. 238, 239; Pub. L. 102–82, § 4, Aug. 6, 1991, 105 Stat. 376; Pub. L. 105–368, title V, § 512(a)(1), Nov. 11, 1998, 112 Stat. 3341.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1998—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 105–368 substituted “Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims” for “Court of Veterans Appeals”.

1991—Pub. L. 102–40, § 402(b)(1), renumbered section 4064 of this title as this section.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 102–40, § 402(d)(1), substituted “7266” for “4066”.

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 102–82 added subsec. (c).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1998 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 105–368 effective on first day of first month beginning more than 90 days after Nov. 11, 1998, see section 513 of Pub. L. 105–368, set out as a note under section 7251 of this title.

Interim Rules of Court of Veterans Appeals

Pub. L. 101–94, title II, § 203, Aug. 16, 1989, 103 Stat. 627, provided that the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (28 U.S.C. App.) would be interim rules of United States Court of Veterans Appeals unless otherwise provided by the Court in accordance with this chapter, and if there was a conflict between a provision of Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and procedures set forth in this chapter, procedures set forth in this chapter would apply.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 38 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1991–2022 · leading case: Monk v. Shulkin, 855 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
Monk v. Shulkin, 855 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2017). · cites it 2× “” This express grant authorizes the Veterans Court to create the procedures it needs to exercise its jurisdiction.”
Durr v. Nicholson, 400 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005). · cites it 2× “See 38 U.S.C. § 7264 (a) (2000). Applying the 2004 rule to Durr’s notice of appeal would have impermissible retroactive effect if it would render invalid a notice that was valid when filed.”
Bove v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 136 (Vet. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “In so holding, we are mindful that Congress has authorized the Court to prescribe its own rules of practice and procedure, see 38 U.S.C. § 7264 , such that our holding today is subject to revision, pursuant to the Court’s rule-making authority.”
Balridge - Demel v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 227 (Vet. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “See 38 U.S.C. § 7264 (a); 28 U.S.C. § 2071 (b); U.”
Charles L. Breedlove Brenda Breedlove v. Eric K. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 7 (Vet. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “"); 38 U.S.C. § 7264 (b) (providing for service of documents "to the address furnished by the appellant"); 38 U.”
William Rickett v. Eric K. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 210 (Vet. App. 2013). · cites it 4× “See 38 U.S.C. § 7264 . As stated in Henderson III, 131 S.”
Barbara A. Carbino, Claimant-Appellant v. Togo D. West, Jr., Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 168 F.3d 32 (Fed. Cir. 1999). · cites it 2× “See 38 U.S.C. § 7264 (a) (1994). The court’s Rule 28(a)(3) is similar to the corresponding rule of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.”
Harold E. Bailey, Claimant-Appellant v. Togo D. West, Jr., Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 160 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “See 38 U.S.C. § 7264 (a) (“The proceedings of the Court of Veterans Appeals shall be conducted in accordance with such rules of practice and procedure as the Court prescribes.”
William C. Rickett v. Eric K. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 366 (Vet. App. 2010). · cites it 3× “3 The majority's suggestion that Irwin must somehow be "circumvented" to conclude that a misfiling below might nevertheless be a timely deemed filing at the Court under our jurisdictional statute, 38 U.S.C. § 7264 , reflects a failure to consider the time-honored principle that…”
Hezekiah Green, Jr. v. Robert A. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 281 (Vet. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “2014); see 38 U.S.C. § 7264 (a). As the Court recently stated in Robinson v.”
Leroy S. Robinson, Jr. v. Robert A. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 178 (Vet. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “2014); see 38 U.S.C. § 7264 (a). "Review in the Court shall be on the record of proceedings before the Secretary and the Board.”
Samuel A. Aronson, Claimant-Appellant v. Jesse Brown, Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 14 F.3d 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1994). · cites it 2× “§ 455 (a) ] is made expressly applicable to this Court by 38 U.S.C. § 7264 (e) (formerly § 4064(c)).”
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.