Marksbury v. Marksbury

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that the Court of Federal Claims does not have jurisdiction to review a Special Master’s decision reinstating a claim after it had been dismissed because it was not a final decision
• finding that a special master's order reinstating a claim previously dismissed as time-barred was \an interlocutory matter” and not an appealable \decision” within the meaning of the Vaccine Act
• finding that the United States Court of Federal Claims lacked jurisdiction over a Special i\\/iaster’s Order because the Order was not a final Decision indicating whether compensation wasto be awarded and the amount of such compensation if awarded
• finding that the special master’s order reinstating claim previously found time-barred was not a decision subject to review by the Court of Federal Claims because it did not resolve whether compensation would be awarded and the amount of that compensation
• finding that the special master’s order reinstating claim previously found time-barred was not a decision subject to review by the Court of Federal Claims because it did not resolve whether compensation would be awarded and the amount of that compensation
• interpreting Setnes as drawing a distinction between “subtle” and “clear evidence of an injury or disease”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).