State v. Muramoto

How courts have described this case

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

• applying the presumption of regularity to the BVA’s mailing of a copy of a BVA decision to a veteran
• applying the presumption of regularity to the Board's mailing of a copy of its decision to a veteran
• applying the presumption of regularity to the Board's mailing of a copy of its decision to a veteran
• there exists presumption that appellant was notified of BVA decision and that presumption can be overcome only by “ ‘clear evidence to the contrary’ ”
• there exists presumption that appellant was notified of BVA decision and that presumption can be overcome only by \'clear evidence to the contrary'\ (quoting Ashley v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 307, 308-09 (1992)
• “[T]he phrase ‘the B[oard] shall promptly mail’ in [section] 7104(e) means that the B[oard] decision must be correctly addressed, stamped with the proper postage, and delivered directly by the B[oard] into the custody of the U.S. Postal Service.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).