38 U.S.C. § 7269
Publication of decisions
1998—Subsecs. (a), (b). Pub. L. 105–368 substituted “Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims” for “Court of Veterans Appeals”.
1991—Pub. L. 102–40 renumbered section 4069 of this title as this section.
Amendment by Pub. L. 105–368 effective on first day of first month beginning more than 90 days after
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases, 1991–2019 · leading case: Timothy J. Jordan v. Anthony J. Principi, 17 Vet. App. 261 (Vet. App. 2003).
Timothy J. Jordan v. Anthony J. Principi, 17 Vet. App. 261 (Vet. App. 2003). “§ 552 (a)(1), and decisions of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims are published pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7269 . In short, we sustain Rule 1403(e) as a valid exercise of the VA’s rulemaking authority- Disabled Am.”
Harrison v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 438 (Vet. App. 1991). “§ 7266 (formerly § 4066) (each person adversely affected by such a BVA decision must file a notice of appeal), and, in any event, that (2) such a procedure in this appellate court would be highly unmanageable, and that (3) such a procedure is unnecessary in light of the binding…”
Lefkowitz v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 439 (Vet. App. 1991). “§ 7266 (formerly § 4066) (each person adversely affected by such a BVA decision must file a notice of appeal), and, in any event, that (2) such a procedure in this appellate court would be highly unmanageable, and that (3) such a procedure is unnecessary in light of the binding…”
Disabled Am. Vets. v. Gober, 234 F.3d 682 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “§ 552 (a)(1), and decisions of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims are published pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7269 . In short, we sustain Rule 1403(e) as a valid exercise of the VA’s rulemaking authority.”
Victor B. Skaar v. Robert L. Wilkie (Vet. App. 2019). “But absent claimants are already bound by our precedential decisions, see 38 U.S.C. § 7269 , and thus we need not require this factor.”
Amanda Jane Wolfe & Peter E. Boerschinger v. Robert L. Wilkie (Vet. App. 2019). “186 See 38 U.S.C. § 7269 . 187 See Godsey, 31 Vet.”
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.