Hampton v. Nicholson
This text of 172 F. App'x 1007 (Hampton v. Nicholson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Darrell J. Hampton appeals the dismissal of his petition for a writ of mandamus as moot. Hampton v. Nicholson, 19 Vet.App. 514 (2005). Because the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims granted Hampton’s motion for a panel hearing on his underlying appeal, 03-927, it did not abuse its discretion in dismissing his petition for the writ, which requested extraordinary procedural action in aid of that appeal. See Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 403, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976) (providing the standard for granting a writ of mandamus); Lamb v. Principi, 284 F.3d 1378 (Fed.Cir.2002) (finding jurisdiction to review denials of a writ of mandamus by the Veterans Court). Therefore, we affirm.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
172 F. App'x 1007, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hampton-v-nicholson-cafc-2006.