Keola v. Parker

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that it is presumed that government officials \have properly discharged their official duties\
• providing that the “presumption of regularity” applies to the official acts of public officers, and in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed they have properly discharged their official duties
• providing that “the presumption [of official regularity] operates in reverse. If [the action] appears irregular, it is irregular, and the burden shifts to the proponent to show the contrary” (quoting United States v. Roses Inc., 706 F.2d 1563, 1567 (Fed.Cir.1983))
• \There is no need for us to decide what the result would have been had [the claimant's representative] never received the decision.\
• Court initially presumed October 24, 1990, date of BVA decision to be date of mailing
• Secretary’s breach of statutory duty to mail BVA decision to claimant’s representative cured by actual receipt

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).