Smith v. Derwinski

How courts have described this case

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

• where statute (38 U.S.C. § 105) establishes a presumption in the claimant’s favor, a preponderance of the evidence must be offered to show that an exception applies
• “[I]n all cases section 105 establishes a presumption in favor of a finding of line of duty. If the BVA finds that an exception does apply (in this case, willful misconduct

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Forshey v. West
  Veterans Claims· 1998-12-03· cited 16×
• Venturella v. Gober
  Veterans Claims· 1997-07-15· cited 12×
• Daniels v. Brown
  Veterans Claims· 1996-09-03· cited 11×
• ZN v. Brown
  Veterans Claims· 1994-02-04· cited 5×
• Elias v. Brown
  Veterans Claims· 1997-05-16· cited 5×
• Myore v. Brown
  Veterans Claims· 1996-10-31· cited 3×

Cites

7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Gilbert v. Derwinski
  Veterans Claims· 1990-10-12· cited 2,831×
• Colvin v. Derwinski
  Veterans Claims· 1991-03-08· cited 608×
• Fletcher v. Derwinski
  Veterans Claims· 1991-07-16· cited 361×
• Akins v. Derwinski
  Veterans Claims· 1991-04-23· cited 53×
• Carolyn J. Sharp v. Calvin E. Egler and Bill Hanka Auto Sales, Inc., D/B/A Clarksville Auto Mart
  Seventh Circuit· 1981-08-25· cited 15×
• Virginia C. McDaniel v. Albert Franklin D. Frye, Etc.
  Fifth Circuit· 1976-08-05· cited 5×
• Helen Lidy v. Film Transit, Inc.
  Fifth Circuit· 1986-08-06· cited 5×