Kaiu v. Kaeo

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that appellant abandoned his claim where he had failed to timely file NOD
• holding that claimants are deemed to have knowledge of requirements of § 3.158(a) and that “abandonment pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.158(a) cannot be set aside or waived on grounds of alleged ignorance of regulatory requirements”
• \The Supreme Court has held that everyone dealing with the Government is charged with knowledge of federal statutes and lawfully promulgated agency regulations.\ (citing Fed. Crop Ins. Corp. v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380, 384-85 (1947))
• same; claimants deemed to have knowledge of requirements of section 3.158(a)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).