Lefkowitz v. Derwinski

1 Vet. App. 439, 1991 U.S. Vet. App. LEXIS 89, 1991 WL 166280
CourtUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
DecidedAugust 30, 1991
DocketNo. 90-634
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 1 Vet. App. 439 (Lefkowitz v. Derwinski) 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
Lefkowitz v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 439, 1991 U.S. Vet. App. LEXIS 89, 1991 WL 166280 (Cal. 1991).

Opinions

[440]*440ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The Court has considered the following pleadings: (1) appellant’s January 29, 1991, petition to the Court en banc to establish a class action procedure; (2) the February 8, 1991, motion of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to consolidate this appeal with the appeal in Harrison v. Derwinski, U.S.Vet.App. No. 90-545 (filed June 28, 1990), for purposes pertaining to said petition; (3) the April 10,1991, response of the Secretary to the petition; and (4) appellant’s June 10, 1991, reply to the Secretary’s response to the petition.

Based on the foregoing, and it appearing to the Court that (1) it lacks the power to adopt a rule of the kind proposed for class actions, see 38 U.S.C. § 7252 (formerly § 4052) (limits the jurisdiction of this Court to the review of Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA) decisions); 38 U.S.C. § 7261(c) (formerly § 4061(c)) (no trial de novo); 38 U.S.C. § 7266 (formerly § 4066) (each person adversely affected by such a BVA decision must file a notice of appeal), and, in any event, that (2) such a procedure in this appellate court would be highly unmanageable, and that (3) such a procedure is unnecessary in light of the binding effect of this Court’s published opinions as precedent in pending and future cases, see 38 U.S.C. § 7269(a)-(b) (formerly § 4069(a)-(b)) (decisions of Court have precedential effect); see Webster v. Reproductive Health Serv., 492 U.S. 490, 109 S.Ct. 3040, 3056, 106 L.Ed.2d 410 (1989) {stare decisis is a cornerstone of our legal system); California Dep’t of Health Serv. v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Serv., 853 F.2d 634, 638 (9th Cir.1988) (court of appeals must ordinarily follow its previous decisions absent subsequent change in substantive law); Robinson v. United States, 272 F.2d 554 (D.C.Cir.1959) (ruling of appellate court is binding law unless and until superior tribunal makes determination that strips ruling of validity); M.A.P. v. Ryan, 285 A.2d 310 (D.C.1971) (same), it is

ORDERED that appellant’s petition to the Court en banc to establish a class action procedure is denied. It is further

ORDERED that the Secretary’s motion to consolidate this appeal with the appeal in Harrison is denied as moot. It is further

ORDERED that, not later than 30 days after the date of this order, appellant file a counter designation of the record on appeal.

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

Related

181210-1429
Board of Veterans' Appeals, 2019
11-04 229
Board of Veterans' Appeals, 2018
10-19 537
Board of Veterans' Appeals, 2015
Veterans for Common Sense v. Eric K. Shinseki
644 F.3d 845 (Ninth Circuit, 2011)
Veterans for Common Sense v. Shinseki
663 F.3d 1033 (Ninth Circuit, 2011)
Beamon v. Brown
125 F.3d 965 (Sixth Circuit, 1997)
Henderson v. Brown
10 Vet. App. 272 (Veterans Claims, 1997)
Hudgins v. Brown
8 Vet. App. 365 (Veterans Claims, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 Vet. App. 439, 1991 U.S. Vet. App. LEXIS 89, 1991 WL 166280, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lefkowitz-v-derwinski-cavc-1991.