Daniel G. Ross v. James B. Peake

21 Vet. App. 534, 2008 U.S. Vet. App. LEXIS 5, 2008 WL 80763
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Daniel G. Ross v. James B. Peake. Read the opinion of the Court — 21 Vet. App. 528
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims·Decided January 8, 2008·No. 05-2286·Published

Opinions

[535]*535ORDER

PER CURIAM:

On January 2, 2008, the Court issued a panel decision in the above-captioned appeal, affirming a June 20, 2005, Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) decision. See Ross v. Peake, 21 Vet.App. 528, 2008 WL 36825 (Jan. 2, 2008). Prior to the issuance of Ross, two judges requested full-Court consideration. See Court’s Internal Operating Procedures ¶ V(b)(5).

Upon consideration of the foregoing, and there being no majority in favor of the request for full-Court consideration, it is

ORDERED that full-Court consideration is DENIED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Daniel G. Ross v. James B. Peake, 21 Vet. App. 534, 2008 U.S. Vet. App. LEXIS 5, 2008 WL 80763 (Cal. 2008).

21 Vet. App. 534 (Daniel G. Ross v. James B. Peake) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Brown v. Gardner
513 U.S. 115 (Supreme Court, 1994)
Jerry G. Dalton v. R. James Nicholson
21 Vet. App. 23 (Veterans Claims, 2007)
Thom as Ellington, Jr. v. R. Jam Es Nicholson
22 Vet. App. 141 (Veterans Claims, 2007)
Daniel G. Ross v. James B. Peake
21 Vet. App. 528 (Veterans Claims, 2008)
Wood v. Derwinski
1 Vet. App. 367 (Veterans Claims, 1991)
Hazan v. Gober
10 Vet. App. 511 (Veterans Claims, 1997)