Hokama v. Administrative 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 a jurisdiction-conferring Notice of Disagreement attaches to an RO’s failure to adjudicate a claim which was properly before it
• holding that jurisdiction-conferring NOD encompassed claim that RO had failed to adjudicate but that had been reasonably raised to it, and remanding that claim for Board review
• finding that, where claimant enumerated certain issues and stated that there are \no additional issues\ at hearing, Court found that \these few words spoken orally\ did not provide \the formality or specificity that withdrawal of [a Notice of Disagreement] requires.\
• finding that, where claimant enumerated certain issues and stated that there are “no additional issues” at hearing, Court found that “these few words spoken orally” did not provide “the formality or specificity that withdrawal of [a Notice of Disagreement] requires.”
• finding that, where claimant enumerated certain issues and stated that there are “no additional issues” at hearing, Court found that “these few words spoken orally” did not provide “the formality or specificity that withdrawal of [a Notice of Disagreement] requires”
• finding that, where claimant enumerated certain issues and stated that there are \no additional issues\ at hearing, Court found that \these few words spoken orally\ did not provide \the formality or specificity that withdrawal of [a Notice of Disagreement] requires\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).