Matter of Edwin C. v. Fenny C.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “[a] CUE allegation must identify the alleged error with some degree of specificity,” and the question of whether an appellant has presented a valid CUE allegation is a question of law that the Court reviews de novo
• noting that Court may not “ 'conduct plenary review of the merits of the original decision’ ”
• reiterating our standard of review of a Board decision on a CUE motion, as enunciated in Archer
• noting that it is well established that the benefit of the doubt doctrine can never be applicable in assessing a CUE motion because the nature of such a motion is that it involves more than a disagreement as to how the facts were weighed or evaluated
• \A CUE allegation must identify the alleged error with 'some degree of specificity.'\ (quoting Crippen v. Brown, 9 Vet.App. 412, 420 (1996))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).