In re Timeliness of Appeals

25 Vet. App. 109, 2011 U.S. Vet. App. LEXIS 2769, 2011 WL 6144193
CourtUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
DecidedJune 24, 2011
DocketMisc. No. 10-11
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 25 Vet. App. 109 (In re Timeliness of Appeals) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re Timeliness of Appeals, 25 Vet. App. 109, 2011 U.S. Vet. App. LEXIS 2769, 2011 WL 6144193 (Cal. 2011).

Opinion

ORDER

BY ORDER OF THE FULL COURT:

On March 1, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court issued Henderson v. Shinseki, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 1197, 179 L.Ed.2d 159 (2011), which held that the 120-day deadline under 38 U.S.C. § 7266 for filing a Notice of Appeal (NOA) with this Court “does not have jurisdictional attributes” and therefore that the dismissal of an untimely appeal for lack of jurisdiction was improper. 131 S.Ct. at 1206. Although Mr. Henderson had argued before this Court that the 120-day deadline in section 7266(a) is subject to equitable tolling and that his failure to timely file his NOA should be excused under tolling principles, the parties did not ask the Supreme Court to address that issue and the Supreme Court, therefore, expressed no view on the question. Id. at 1206 n. 4. In this regard, the Supreme Court further held that “[t]he 120-day limit is nevertheless an important procedural rule,” the limitation of which is a question to be considered on remand. Id. at 1206. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the Federal Circuit, which remanded it to this Court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision.

This Court’s disposition of the equitable tolling issue in Henderson v. Shinseki, No. 05-0090 (U.S. Vet.App. remanded from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Apr. 13, 2011), may have a direct bearing on the disposition of many cases pending before the Court. For the sake of judicial economy and efficiency, the Court will stay cases affected by the Supreme Court’s Henderson decision until the Court has issued its decision in the remanded case.

THEREFORE, as ORDERED by this Court, the cases listed in the addendum to this order are stayed pending further order of the Court. If parties in cases not included in the addendum believe those cases should be stayed, they may file a proper motion requesting a stay.

ADDENDUM TO MISC. NO. 10-11

Case Name and Number:

Alcendor v. Shinseki, No. 11-0719

Alexander v. Shinseki, No. 11-739

Baker v. Shinseki, No. 11-0600

Baligod v. Shinseki, No. 10-3035

Baniqued v. Shinseki, No. 10-4303

Barberree v. Shinseki, No. 11-0928

Beard v. Shinseki, No. 11-907

Beasley v. Shinseki, No. 11-0546

Beckley v. Shinseki, No. 10-3972

Beever v. Shinseki, No. 11-0979

Billow v. Shinseki, No. 11-999

Bond v. Shinseki, No. 11-0924

Booker v. Shinseki, No. 11-0345

Bowman v. Shinseki, No. 11-0055

Brand v. Shinseki, No. 11-0414

Bravo v. Shinseki, No. 11-0057

Bumatay v. Shinseki, No. 10-3345

Calloway v. Shinseki, No. 11-0230

Carpenter v. Shinseki, No. 10-1266

Casey v. Shinseki, No. 11-1507

Clausen v. Shinseki, No. 11-1058

[110]*110Cleveland v. Shinseki, No. 10-3951

Colon-Franco v. Shinseki, No. 11-1445

Coppola v. Shinseki, No. 10-3984

Crom v. Shinseki, No. 11-0519

Crosby v. Shinseki, No. 09-0189

Darlington v. Shinseki, No. 11-0478

Davis v. Shinseki, No. 10-3997

Decuir v. Shinseki, No. 11-0998

Delos Santos v. Shinseki, No. 11-0632

Dilworth v. Shinseki, No. 11-1586

Divito v. Shinseki, No. 10-3200

Dixon v. Shinseki, No. 11-1219

Dotson v. Shinseki, No. 10-4326

Dotson v. Shinseki, No. 11-1365

Enriquez v. Shinseki, No. 11-1511

Evans v. Shinseki, No. 11-0633

Fabro v. Shinseki, No. 10-3927

Feller v. Shinseki, No. 10-3945

Fleishman v. Shinseki, No. 11-521

Ford v. Shinseki, No. 11-0930

Frelow v. Shinseki, No. 10-3069

Garner v. Shinseki, No. 11-0352

Gist v. Shinseki, No. 11-0634

Golden v. Shinseki, No. 04-1385

Graham v. Shinseki, No. 11-0698

Granaas v. Shinseki, No. 11-0931

Gucaban v. Shinseki, No. 11-1096

Guerrero v. Shinseki, No. 10-4271

Halseth v. Shinseki, No. 05-3646

Henry v. Shinseki, No. 11-1307

Hickerson v. Shinseki, No. 11-0233

Higgins v. Shinseki, No. 11-0933

Hinojosa v. Shinseki, No. 10-258

Hodge v. Shinseki, No. 10-4000

Hoey v. Shinseki, No. 11-1041

Home v. Shinseki, No. 09-2042

Howard v. Shinseki, No. 10-3140

Huddleston v. Shinseki, No. 10-3157

Huffman v. Shinseki, No. 11-0008

Jackson v. Shinseki, No. 11-1236

Jones v. Shinseki, No. 11-1552

Jones v. Shinseki, No. 11-1337

Kamatoy v. Shinseki, No. 10-3874

Kennedy v. Shinseki, No. 11-1463

King v. Shinseki, No. 10-2622

King v. Shinseki, No. 11-1217

Kneece v. Shinseki, No. 11-0199

Lane v. Shinseki, No. 10-2450

Lang v. Shinseki, No. 10-3976

Lazerano v. Shinseki, No. 08-3886

Lowery v. Shinseki, No. 11-737

Luckett v. Shinseki, No. 11-0974

Lynn v. Shinseki, No. 11-0404

Madden v. Shinseki, No. 11-1464

Marguglio v. Shinseki, No. 11-0833

Martin v. Shinseki, No. 11-375

Martin v. Shinseki, No. 11-0867

Matuskovic v. Shinseki, No. 11-1147

McDonald v. Shinseki, No. 10-2736

McPeake v. Shinseki, No. 10-3956

McPeake v. Shinseki, No. 10-3944

Mezzulo v. Shinseki, No. 10-2277

Miller v. Shinseki, No. 10-3688

Miner v. Shinseki, No. 11-1525

Molina v. Shinseki, No. 10-4217

Montgomery v. Shinseki, No. 11-0363

Morgan v. Shinseki, No. 11-282

Morris v. Shinseki, No. 11-1333

Nance v. Shinseki, No. 11-1323

Nascimento v. Shinseki, No. 10-4005

Nelson v. Shinseki, No. 10-3115

[111]*111Newberry v. Shinseki, No. 10-2010

Nicholson v. Shinseki, No. 11-0067

Niemela v. Shinseki, No. 11-1515

Nottingham v. Shinseki, No. 11-1182

O’Connell v. Shinseki, No. 11-1216

Olmschenk v. Shinseki, No. 11-0405

Padilla v.

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

Related

Michael Stoffel v. Shinseki
527 F. App'x 940 (Federal Circuit, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
25 Vet. App. 109, 2011 U.S. Vet. App. LEXIS 2769, 2011 WL 6144193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-timeliness-of-appeals-cavc-2011.