Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Cleary v. Brown

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims

Decided October 5, 1995No. 91-2006Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partSteinberg, Judge

I concur in the majority’s decision to the extent that the appellant’s application under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) is granted. I dissent from the majority’s holding that the Court did not have the power to retain jurisdiction in its November 1992 memorandum decision in the underlying appeal, and I would award EAJA fees for the postremand representation before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA or Board).

The majority’s holding is wrong because it does not explain (nor could it) how jurisdiction returned to the BVA from this Court at the time of its memorandum…

2Cases cited82 opinions

  1. Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. Link v. Wabash RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
  3. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of AmericaSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
  4. Chambers v. Nasco, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
  5. Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978

77 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API