Legal Opinion

Stokes v. Derwinski

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims

Decided April 4, 1991No. 90-122PublishedCited by 37 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING OR REVIEW EN BANC

Before NEBEKER, Chief Judge, and KRAMER and FARLEY, Associate Judges. KRAMER, Associate Judge:

On October 12, 1990, this panel rendered a decision in the consolidated cases of Whitt v. Derwinski, U.S.Vet.App. No. 89-16; Williams v. Derwinski, U.S.Vet.App. No. 89-151; Davis v. Derwinski, U.S.Vet.App. No. 90-38; and Stokes v. Derwinski, U.S.Vet.App. No. 90-122. Whitt v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 40 (1990). At that time the panel ruled, with one judge dissenting, that since appellant Virgil Stokes did not have a valid Notice of Disagreement (NOD)…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Erspamer v. DerwinskiUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · 1990
  2. Whitt v. DerwinskiUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · 1990

3Cited by37 opinions

  1. Ashley v. DerwinskiUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · 1992
  2. Mason v. BrownUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · 1995
  3. Thompson v. BrownUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · 1995
  4. John E. Claiborne v. R. James NicholsonUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · 2005
  5. William E. McCreary v. R. James NicholsonUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · 2005

32 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