Legal Opinion
Smith v. West
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
Decided June 14, 2000No. 99-988PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
STEINBERG, Judge:
Before the Court in this appeal is a jurisdictional issue of the timeliness of the appellant’s Notice of Appeal (NOA). The Court’s determination of this issue turns on whether the circumstances of this case support the application of equitable tolling, within the meaning of Bailey v. West, 160 F.3d 1360 (Fed.Cir.1998) (en banc), to the 38 U.S.C. § 7266(a) 120-day deadline. Because the Court will hold that the situation here does not support the application of equitable tolling, we will grant the Secretary’s motion for dismissal and dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
2Cases cited14 opinions
- McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1936
- Irwin v. Department of Veterans AffairsSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Harold E. Bailey, Claimant-Appellant v. Togo D. West, Jr., Secretary of Veterans AffairsCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1998
- Bethea v. DerwinskiUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · 1992
- Rosler v. DerwinskiUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · 1991
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Emilio T. Palomer v. Robert A. McDonaldUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · 2015
- Mapu v. PrincipiUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · 2002
- Smith v. PrincipiCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2002
- 08-08 978Board of Veterans' Appeals · 2012
- Emilio T. Palomer v. Robert A. McDonaldUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · 2015
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.