Stokes v. Derwinski
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
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
- Erspamer v. DerwinskiUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · 1990
- Whitt v. DerwinskiUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · 1990
3Cited by37 opinions
- Ashley v. DerwinskiUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · 1992
- Mason v. BrownUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · 1995
- Thompson v. BrownUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · 1995
- John E. Claiborne v. R. James NicholsonUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · 2005
- 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.