Barley v. Chicago & A. R.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding, as to motion for BVA reconsideration delivered to RO, that appellant was fully advised of his appellate rights where the Secretary had provided evidence of a dated Notice that had accompanied BVA decision on appeal
• “Certainly, the RO had no obligation to read the mind[ ] of the veteran .... ”
• “[e]ertainly, the RO had no obligation to read the mind[ ] of the veteran”
• VA “ha[s] no obligation to read the mind of the veteran”
• discussing possible application of equitable-tolling doctrine to first Rosier condition
• “cause and effect” relationship must exist, i.e., appellant relied to his own detriment on action that VA took, or should have taken but did not, and equitable tolling is not invoked if “the appellant’s reliance on VA was not the cause of the late filing”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).