Lenn v. Lane County

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that, to establish CUE in that case, the movant had to show that “the result of the claim on the merits would have been manifestly different (i.e.[,] the RO would have considered and awarded service connection)”
• dismissing appeal with respect to a claim that had been reasonably raised to the RO and Board but upon which VA had never issued an original decision
• “Court presumes that the Secretary will act expeditiously” to adjudicate CUE claim not decided by BVA as to which Court dismissed appeal, citing “c/” to VBIA § 302
• “Court presumes that the Secretary will act expeditiously” to adjudicate CUE claim not decided by BVA as to which Court dismissed appeal, citing “cf.” to [the Veterans’ Benefits Improvements Act of 1994 (VBIA), Pub.L. No. 103-446, § 302, 108 Stat. 4645, 4658 (1994

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).