Legal Opinion
Mokal v. Derwinski
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
Decided March 9, 1990No. 89-23PublishedCited by 127 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
NEBEKER, Chief Judge:
Petitioner’s daughter Marie E. Marlow, who is acting as his custodian, sent a letter to the Court, which we treat as a petition, requesting that the Court preempt the appeal process within the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) and assume jurisdiction over the petitioner’s claim under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (1982). In the alternative, petitioner requested that the Court issue a writ of mandamus compelling the Regional Office of the DVA to issue a delayed Statement of the Case, the document required to secure review before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- North Carolina v. RiceSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Thomas v. Union Carbide Agricultural Products Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. SchorSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Palmore v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by127 opinions
- Vda de Landicho v. BrownUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · 1994
- Zevalkink v. BrownCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1996
- Best v. PrincipiUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · 2001
- In re the Fee Agreement of CoxUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · 1997
- Padgett v. NicholsonCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2007
122 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.