Legal Opinion
Fugere v. Derwinski
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
Decided December 27, 1990No. 89-72PublishedCited by 144 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
FARLEY, Associate Judge:
The issue before the Court is whether the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) was required by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and its own policies and regulations to give notice of and an opportunity to comment on the deletion of paragraph 50.13(b) of its Adjudication Procedure Manual, M21-1. The Court concludes that paragraph 50.13(b) was substantive in nature and affected the rights of the appellant. In rescinding the manual provision without complying with rulemaking procedures, the VA acted “without observance of procedure required by law.” 38 U.S.C. §…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. of United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. RisjordSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Morton v. RuizSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Office of Personnel Management v. RichmondSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by144 opinions
- Karnas v. DerwinskiUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · 1991
- Thurber v. BrownUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · 1993
- Suttmann v. BrownUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · 1993
- Ashley v. DerwinskiUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · 1992
- Robinson v. MansfieldUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · 2008
139 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.