Samuel J. Vincent v. Eric K. Shinseki

Veterans Claims

Samuel J. Vincent v. Eric K. Shinseki

25 Vet. App. 83, 2011 U.S. Vet. App. LEXIS 1955, 2011 WL 4359863

CourtUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims

DecidedSeptember 20, 2011

Docket10-2208

StatusPublished

This text of 25 Vet. App. 83 (Samuel J. Vincent v. Eric K. Shinseki) 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

Samuel J. Vincent v. Eric K. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 83, 2011 U.S. Vet. App. LEXIS 1955, 2011 WL 4359863 (Cal. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

On July 6, 2010, the appellant, through counsel, filed a Notice of Appeal with this Court disputing a June 8, 2010, Board of Veterans’ Appeals decision. On January 26, 2011, after counsel filed an untimely brief, the Court issued an order ordering the Clerk to “forward the appeal for appropriate action by the screening judge. See, e.g., U.S. Vet.App. R. 81(b).” On April 15, 2011, the appeal was dismissed under Rule 31(b). On May 5, 2011, the appellant filed a motion for reconsideration or, in the alternative, for panel review. A panel was formed and, on June 24, 2011, the panel issued an order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed.

While the particular considerations and facts of this appeal militate against its dismissal, this order should serve as a warning to those who disregard or flout this Court’s rules. The timely consideration of veterans’ appeals should not and will not be held hostage to the dilatory practices of attorneys for either party, and dismissal for failure to follow the Court’s rules concerning timely filing remains an option under Rule 31.

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is

ORDERED that the Court’s orders of January 26, 2011, and April 15, 2011, are revoked; the appeal is reinstated; the appellant’s brief is accepted; and the appeal is returned to the Clerk for continuation of the briefing process.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

On July 6, 2010, the appellant, through counsel, filed a Notice of Appeal with this Court disputing a June 8, 2010, Board of Veterans’ Appeals decision. On January 26, 2011, after counsel filed an untimely brief, the Court issued an order ordering the Clerk to “forward the appeal for appropriate action by the screening judge. See, e.g., U.S. Vet.App. R. 81(b).” On April 15, 2011, the appeal was dismissed under Rule 31(b). On May 5, 2011, the appellant filed a motion for reconsideration or, in the alternative, for panel review. A panel was formed and, on June 24, 2011, the panel issued an order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed.

While the particular considerations and facts of this appeal militate against its dismissal, this order should serve as a warning to those who disregard or flout this Court’s rules. The timely consideration of veterans’ appeals should not and will not be held hostage to the dilatory practices of attorneys for either party, and dismissal for failure to follow the Court’s rules concerning timely filing remains an option under Rule 31.

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is

ORDERED that the Court’s orders of January 26, 2011, and April 15, 2011, are revoked; the appeal is reinstated; the appellant’s brief is accepted; and the appeal is returned to the Clerk for continuation of the briefing process.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 Vet. App. 83, 2011 U.S. Vet. App. LEXIS 1955, 2011 WL 4359863, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/samuel-j-vincent-v-eric-k-shinseki-cavc-2011.