Tataipu v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that RO’s failure to consider relevant evidence was clear on face of RO decision (because RO denied existence of evidence that did exist
• holding that appellant not prejudiced by Board’s failure to discuss “whether either letter constituted an NOD ... because this Court holds as a matter of law that neither could constitute a valid NOD”
• “appellant’s statement of nonreceipt, standing alone, is not the type of ‘clear evidence to the contrary’ which is sufficient to rebut the presumption”
• presumption of regularity applies to VA mailing of RO decision in same manner as it applies to BVA mailing of its decision

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).