Michael T. Rudd v. R. James Nicholson

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 freestanding claim for an earlier effective date is improper and may not be adjudicated because such would vitiate the rule of finality
• holding that a freestanding claim for an earlier effective date is a nullity, and the only basis for challenging the effective of a now final decision date is CUE
• holding that any other result would vitiate the rule of finality
• recognizing clear and unmistakable error as a way to overcome the finality of a decision in order to obtain an earlier effective date
• finding that only a request for revision based on CUE could result in the assignment of an effective date earlier than the date of a final decision
• finding that only a request for revision based on CUE could result in the assignment of an effective date earlier than the date of a final decision

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).