Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Rios-Collins v. Nicholson

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims

Decided June 27, 2006No. 04-0354, 04-1840Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partKasold, Judge

The issue before the Court is whether veterans Rios and Collins complied with section 38 U.S.C. § 7266(c) such that their appeals may be heard by the Court. I believe that they have fully complied with the statute and that the common law mailbox rule serves to permit the proper exercise of our review authority over these appeals. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from the Court’s holding today that the common law mailbox rule does not apply to NOAs filed with the Court.2

I. SECTION 7266

Congress promulgated the predecessor to section 7266, then 38 U.S.C. § 4066, in 1988. See Act of Nov. 18,…

2Cases cited44 opinions

  1. United States v. ArmstrongSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
  2. United States v. L. A. Tucker Truck Lines, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1952
  3. Reiter v. Sonotone Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1979
  4. Brown v. GardnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
  5. United States v. Chemical Foundation, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926

39 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