Skip to main content
· 6/18/1999

State v. Joo Ho Wang

Citations

  • 90 Haw. 441
  • 978 P.2d 879

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that, with respect to an RO decision that has been subsumed by a BVA decision, “no claim of CUE under 38 C.F.R. § 3.105(a) exists as a matter of law”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Klein, Levinson, Moon, Nakayama, Ramil

Read full opinion on CourtListener

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.