Citation network
Henderson Vs. Shinseki
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 01, 2011
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
Syllabus October Term, 2010 Henderson V. ShinsekiSearch
-
file should be excused under equitable tolling principles. While his appeal was pending, this Court decided Bowles v. RussellSearch
-
s adjudicatory capacity, i.e., its subject-matter or personal jurisdiction. E.g., Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. MuchnickSearch
-
quintessential claim-processing rules, Congress is free to attach jurisdictional consequences to such rules. Arbaugh v. Y &Search
-
and Bowen v. CitySearch
-
Zipes v. TransSearch
-
longstanding solicitude for veterans, United States v. OregonSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
other Members joined, except Kagan, J., who took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. Henderson v. ShinsekiSearch
-
Opinion of the Court Henderson V. ShinsekiSearch
-
No. 09-1036 Doretha H. Henderson, Authorized Represen- Tative of David L. Henderson, Deceased, Petitioner V. EricSearch
-
Walters v. NationalSearch
-
s appeal was pending, however, we decided Bowles v. RussellSearch
-
s untimely appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Henderson v. PeakeSearch
-
See Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. MuchnickSearch
-
Union Pacific R. Co. v. LocomotiveSearch
-
Arbaugh v. Y &Search
-
Eberhart v. UnitedSearch
-
courts are generally limited to addressing the claims and arguments advanced by the parties. See Sanchez-Llamas v. OregonSearch
-
we will presume that Congress intended to follow that course. See John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
reasoning extends to the judicial review of administrative decisions, the Government relies on Stone v. INSSearch
-
courts of appeals of final removal orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Id. , at 405 (quoting Missouri v. JenkinsSearch
-
benefits differs in many respects from court of appeals review of an agency decision under the Hobbs Act. Cf. Shinseki v. SandersSearch
-
of claimants, Heckler v. DaySearch
-
See also Sims v. ApfelSearch
-
g), is not jurisdictional. Bowen v. CitySearch
-
That placement suggests Congress regarded the 120-day limit as a claim-processing rule. Cf. INS v. NationalSearch
-
see also Coffy v. RepublicSearch
-
Fishgold v. SullivanSearch
-
benefits legislation, Johnson v. RobisonSearch
-
to VA benefits regulations based on later-in-time statutes that the VA did not administer exclusively, Traynor v. TurnageSearch
-
Bowles v. RussellSearch
-
E.g., Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. MuchnickSearch
-
Of David L. Henderson, Deceased, Petitioner V. EricSearch
-
Henderson v. PeakeSearch
-
See Sanchez-Llamas v. OregonSearch
-
See John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
the Hobbs Act. Cf. Shinseki v. SandersSearch
-
Bowen v. CitySearch
-
Cf. INS v. NationalSearch
-
Coffy v. RepublicSearch
-
Johnson v. RobisonSearch
-
United States v. OregonSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial