Hamamoto v. Admin. Director of the Courts

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, after presumption of regularity of mailing was rebutted, Secretary did not meet his burden of establishing that BVA decision was mailed to veteran as required by section 7104(e)
• holding that, after the presumption .of regularity of mailing was rebutted, Secretary did not meet his burden of establishing that BVA decision was mailed to veteran as required by section 7104(e)
• holding that clear evidence is required to rebut the presumption of regularity
• concluding that Secretary failed to show that BVA decision was mailed in compliance with section 7104(e) and holding that 120 day judicial-appeal period of section 7266(a) was tolled and did not begin to run again until defect in mailing was cured
• Board’s use of an incorrect address in mailing BVA decision to claimant constituted “clear evidence” needed to rebut presumption of regularity

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).