McArthur Jones, and Martin M. Karnas, Claimant-Appellant v. Anthony J. Principi, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

Federal Circuit

McArthur Jones, and Martin M. Karnas, Claimant-Appellant v. Anthony J. Principi, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

985 F.2d 582, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 37482, 1992 WL 383295

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

DecidedNovember 19, 1992

Docket92-7047

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 985 F.2d 582 (McArthur Jones, and Martin M. Karnas, Claimant-Appellant v. Anthony J. Principi, Secretary of Veterans Affairs) 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.

Bluebook

McArthur Jones, and Martin M. Karnas, Claimant-Appellant v. Anthony J. Principi, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 985 F.2d 582, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 37482, 1992 WL 383295 (Fed. Cir. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

985 F.2d 582

NOTICE: Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.8(b) states that opinions and orders which are designated as not citable as precedent shall not be employed or cited as precedent. This does not preclude assertion of issues of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, law of the case or the like based on a decision of the Court rendered in a nonprecedential opinion or order.
McArthur JONES, Claimant,
and
Martin M. Karnas, Claimant-Appellant,
v.
Anthony J. PRINCIPI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs,
Respondent-Appellee.

No. 92-7047.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Nov. 19, 1992.

Before PAULINE NEWMAN, MAYER and LOURIE, Circuit Judges.

PAULINE NEWMAN, Circuit Judge.

The only issue in this appeal is whether the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2), applies to proceedings before the United States Court of Veterans Appeals. On October 29, 1992 the President signed into law the Federal Courts Administration Act of 1992, which amended the EAJA to add the Court of Veterans Appeals to the definition of courts authorized to award attorney fees and expenses under that Act, effective on the date of enactment. The amendment was made applicable, inter alia, to any appeal pending in the Federal Circuit on the date of enactment.

The parties jointly ask this court to vacate the decision of the Court of Veterans Appeals1 which held that the EAJA was not applicable to proceedings in that court, and to remand to that court for further proceedings consistent with the 1992 amendments. Such action is appropriate. Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Veterans Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded.

1

McArthur Jones and Martin Karnas v. Edward J. Derwinski, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 2 Vet.App. 231 (1992)

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

985 F.2d 582

NOTICE: Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.8(b) states that opinions and orders which are designated as not citable as precedent shall not be employed or cited as precedent. This does not preclude assertion of issues of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, law of the case or the like based on a decision of the Court rendered in a nonprecedential opinion or order.
McArthur JONES, Claimant,
and
Martin M. Karnas, Claimant-Appellant,
v.
Anthony J. PRINCIPI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs,
Respondent-Appellee.

No. 92-7047.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Nov. 19, 1992.

Before PAULINE NEWMAN, MAYER and LOURIE, Circuit Judges.

PAULINE NEWMAN, Circuit Judge.

The only issue in this appeal is whether the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2), applies to proceedings before the United States Court of Veterans Appeals. On October 29, 1992 the President signed into law the Federal Courts Administration Act of 1992, which amended the EAJA to add the Court of Veterans Appeals to the definition of courts authorized to award attorney fees and expenses under that Act, effective on the date of enactment. The amendment was made applicable, inter alia, to any appeal pending in the Federal Circuit on the date of enactment.

The parties jointly ask this court to vacate the decision of the Court of Veterans Appeals1 which held that the EAJA was not applicable to proceedings in that court, and to remand to that court for further proceedings consistent with the 1992 amendments. Such action is appropriate. Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Veterans Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded.

1

McArthur Jones and Martin Karnas v. Edward J. Derwinski, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 2 Vet.App. 231 (1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

985 F.2d 582, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 37482, 1992 WL 383295, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcarthur-jones-and-martin-m-karnas-claimant-appellant-v-anthony-j-cafc-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack