Bates v. Nicholson
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
398 F.3d 1355 (2005)
- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
R. Edward Bates (plaintiff) was an attorney who was accredited by the Department of Veterans Affairs (the VA) (defendant) to represent veterans before the VA in benefits matters. The VA terminated Bates’s accreditation to provide such representation under the provisions of 38 U.S.C. § 5904(b), for various violations of the VA’s operating and practice requirements. Bates alleged that this decision by the VA was reviewable by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (the board). Bates therefore sought a statement of the case (SOC) from the VA, which was required to pursue an appeal to the board. The VA held that the decision did not fall with the board’s jurisdiction and refused to issue an SOC. Bates sought a writ of mandamus from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (the veterans court) to order the VA to issue the SOC. The veterans court held that the board had no jurisdiction over the matter and that the veterans court itself, in turn, had no jurisdiction and therefore could not render mandamus. Bates appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Dyk, J.)
Concurrence (Bryson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
