James M. Patton and Joann Patton, Legal Guardians for Thomas Edward Patton v. Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that the discretion afforded under Vaccine Rule 1 “may not be exercised in a manner that would disturb or exceed the framework laid out by the Court of Federal Claims pursuant to its authority under the Act”
• acknowledging “the settled principle that [RCFC 60(b)] is not to be used as a substitute for an appeal” (citing Ackermann v. United States, 340 U.S. 193, 198-99 (1950))
• a dismissal for failure to comply with the statute of limitations is a 26 dismissal on the merits that renders subsequent petitions successive
• “the Office of Special Masters owes its existence to and derives its powers from the Vaccine Act”
• “dismissal of a first habeas petition for untimeliness presents a 26 “permanent and incurable” bar to federal review of the underlying claims.”
• “Arizona holds that a garnishment proceeding, after its 26 inception, is treated in all respects, except its title, as an original independent action.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).