Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Nicholas Ribaudo v. R. James Nicholson
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
Decided April 13, 2007No. 06-2762Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partSchoelen, Judge
I respectfully dissent from part II of the Court’s order because I believe the Secretary has not met his burden of establishing that a stay of the precedential effect of the Court’s decision in Haas v. Nicholson, 20 Vet.App. 257 (2006), appeal docketed, No.2007-7037 (Fed.Cir. Nov.8, 2006), or that a stay of cases related to Haas pending before VA is warranted.4 I do not believe that the Court has properly applied the four-factor test from Standard Havens Products, Inc. v. Gencor Industries, Inc., 897 F.2d 511 (Fed.Cir.1990), which we decided to follow in both Ribaudo v. Nicholson, 20 Vet.App.…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Hilton v. BraunskillSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission v. Holiday Tours, Inc.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1977
- Roland MacHinery Company v. Dresser Industries, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1984
- Standard Havens Products, Inc. v. Gencor Industries, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1990
- 32 soc.sec.rep.ser. 494, unempl.ins.rep. Cch 15908a Esther Marcus v. Louis v. Sullivan, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human ServicesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1991
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.