Legal Opinion
Angel Vazquez -Flores v. James B. Peake
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
Decided April 4, 2008No. 05-0355PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
2Per curiam
On February 21, 2008, the Secretary filed a motion to stay the precedential effect of the Court’s decision in Vazquez-Flores v. Peake, 22 Vet.App. 37 (2008), “until final judicial resolution of the issues presented.” Secretary’s Motion (Mot.) at 1. The Secretary contends that the prece-dential effect of the decision should be stayed because (1) there is a strong likelihood of success of his pending motion for reconsideration, or in a subsequent appeal if that motion is denied, (2) VA would suffer irreparable harm in the absence of a stay, (3) the nonmoving party would not be adversely…
3Cases cited20 opinions
- Schweiker v. ChilickySupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Hamilton Watch Co. v. Benrus Watch Co., IncCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1953
- Dingess - Hartman v. NicholsonUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · 2006
- Sanders v. NicholsonCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2007
- Mayfield v. NicholsonCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2006
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
4Cited by3 opinions
- Vazquez-Flores v. ShinsekiCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2009
- Angel Vazquez-Flores v. James B. PeakeUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · 2008
- Am Anda Jane Wolfe and P Eter E. Boerschinger Individually and on Behalf of Others Sim Ilarly Situated v. Denis McDonoughUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · 2021