Ramirez v. Derwinski

Veterans Claims

Ramirez v. Derwinski

3 Vet. App. 21, 1992 U.S. Vet. App. LEXIS 278, 1992 WL 210642

CourtUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims

DecidedJanuary 15, 1992

DocketNo. 91-636

StatusPublished

This text of 3 Vet. App. 21 (Ramirez 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

Ramirez v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 21, 1992 U.S. Vet. App. LEXIS 278, 1992 WL 210642 (Cal. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

On November 5, 1991, appellant filed an informal brief. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs (Secretary) neither responded to appellant’s brief within the 30 days prescribed by the Court’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, see U.S.Vet.App.R. 31(a), nor moved for an extension to file a response despite the Court’s demonstrated willingness to extend time limits when the circumstances so warrant. The failure of the Secretary’s representative, or the representative’s supervisory attorney, to timely request an extension in the face of a deadline imposed by rule or order is inexcusable. The indifference to the rules and processes of this Court, the disregard for fair treatment of appellant, and the neglect by the Secretary’s representatives of their professional obligations and responsibilities are unacceptable. On consideration of the foregoing, it is

ORDERED, sua sponte, that the Secretary, within 10 days after the date of this order, either file a response to appellant’s brief or show cause why sanctions should [22]*22not be imposed agamst him or his representative, or both, for failing to comply with this Court’s Rules.

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

ORDER

On November 5, 1991, appellant filed an informal brief. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs (Secretary) neither responded to appellant’s brief within the 30 days prescribed by the Court’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, see U.S.Vet.App.R. 31(a), nor moved for an extension to file a response despite the Court’s demonstrated willingness to extend time limits when the circumstances so warrant. The failure of the Secretary’s representative, or the representative’s supervisory attorney, to timely request an extension in the face of a deadline imposed by rule or order is inexcusable. The indifference to the rules and processes of this Court, the disregard for fair treatment of appellant, and the neglect by the Secretary’s representatives of their professional obligations and responsibilities are unacceptable. On consideration of the foregoing, it is

ORDERED, sua sponte, that the Secretary, within 10 days after the date of this order, either file a response to appellant’s brief or show cause why sanctions should [22]*22not be imposed agamst him or his representative, or both, for failing to comply with this Court’s Rules.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 Vet. App. 21, 1992 U.S. Vet. App. LEXIS 278, 1992 WL 210642, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramirez-v-derwinski-cavc-1992.