Skip to main content
Veterans Claims· 3/9/1990

Mokal v. Derwinski

Citations

  • 1 Vet. App. 12
  • 1990 U.S. Vet. App. LEXIS 3
  • 1990 WL 303128

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding, as a matter of policy, \that the Court will adhere to the case or controversy jurisdictional restraints adopted by Article III courts\
  • noting that this Court adheres to the case-or- controversy jurisdictional requirements imposed by Article III of the U.S. Constitution
  • adopting “as a matter of policy the jurisdictional' restrictions of the Article III case or controversy rubric”
  • adopting \as a matter of policy the jurisdictional restrictions of the Article III case or controversy rubric\
  • entertaining a petition for writ of mandamus that would compel Regional Office to issue a Statement of the Case so petitioner could appeal to Board of Veterans Appeals
  • adopting “the jurisdictional restrictions of the Article III case or controversy rubric,” finding that a petition is moot, and holding that “the Court no longer has jurisdiction and the petition is dismissed”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Farley, Kramer, Nebeker

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

110 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.