Save the Capitol, Save the Trees v. Dept. of General Services

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that VA could not rely on a June 2002 SSOC, which was a postde-cisional document to satisfy its burden to demonstrate that a first-element VCAA error was nonprejudicial
• holding that VA could not rely on a June 2002 SSOC, which was a postdecisional document to satisfy its burden to demonstrate that a 14 first-element VCAA error was nonprejudicial
• holding that counsel’s actions and communications to VA are factors to consider when determining whether a claimant had a meaningful opportunity to effectively participate in the processing of his claim
• holding that failure to provide claimant notice of what information was necessary to substantiate the claim \has the natural effect of producing prejudice\ and generally would affect the fundamental fairness of the adjudication
• finding that the actions of an attorney could be attributed to his client when assessing prejudice in the notice error context
• finding that the actions of an attorney could be attributed to his client when assessing prejudice in the notice error context

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).