Wanless v. Shinseki

86 Citing cases

  1. D'Auria v. McDonald

    645 F. App'x 1006 (Fed. Cir. 2016)

    "Absent a constitutional issue, however, we lack the jurisdiction to 'review (A) a challenge to a factual determination, or (B) a challenge to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case.'" Wanless v. Shinseki, 618 F.3d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2)). II.

  2. Davis v. McDonough

    No. 2022-1506 (Fed. Cir. Jul. 7, 2022)

    This Court's jurisdiction to review Veterans Court decisions is limited by statute. Wanless v. Shinseki, 618 F.3d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Absent a constitutional issue, this Court "may not review (A) a challenge to a factual determination, or (B) a challenge to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case." 38

  3. Elliott v. Wilkie

    2019-2380 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 10, 2020)

    Our jurisdiction to review a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, as set forth in 38 U.S.C. § 7292, is limited. Wanless v. Shinseki, 618 F.3d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010). We have jurisdiction to review "the validity of a decision of the [Veterans] Court on a rule of law or of any statute or regulation . . . or any interpretation thereof (other than a determination as to a factual matter) that was relied on by the [Veterans] Court in making the decision."

  4. Ridgell v. Wilkie

    2018-2334 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 9, 2019)

    "This court's jurisdiction to review decisions by the Veterans Court is limited." Wanless v. Shinseki, 618 F.3d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Absent a constitutional issue, we "may not review (A) a challenge to a factual determination, or (B) a challenge to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case."

  5. Hudick v. Wilkie

    2017-2234 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 3, 2018)   Cited 1 times

    "This court's jurisdiction to review decisions by the Veterans Court is limited." Wanless v. Shinseki, 618 F.3d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Absent a constitutional issue, we "may not review (A) a challenge to a factual determination, or (B) a challenge to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case."

  6. Brown v. McDonald

    655 F. App'x 845 (Fed. Cir. 2016)

    We have jurisdiction "to review and decide any challenge to the validity of any statute or regulation or any interpretation thereof . . . and to interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, to the extent presented and necessary to a decision." Wanless v. Shinseki, 618 F.3d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing 38 U.S.C. § 7292(c)). "Absent a constitutional issue, however, we lack the jurisdiction to 'review (A) a challenge to a factual determination, or (B) a challenge to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case.'"

  7. Clay v. McDonald

    639 F. App'x 649 (Fed. Cir. 2016)

    We have jurisdiction "to review and decide any challenge to the validity of any statute or regulation or any interpretation thereof . . . and to interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, to the extent presented and necessary to a decision." Wanless v. Shinseki, 618 F.3d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing 38 U.S.C. § 7292(c)). "Absent a constitutional issue, however, we lack the jurisdiction to 'review (A) a challenge to a factual determination, or (B) a challenge to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case.'"

  8. Van Allen v. McDonald

    636 F. App'x 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2016)

    We have limited jurisdiction to review decisions of the CAVC. Wanless v. Shinseki, 618 F.3d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010). This court has "exclusive jurisdiction to review and decide any challenge to the validity of any statute or regulation or any interpretation thereof . . . and to interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, to the extent presented and necessary to a decision."

  9. Johnson v. McDonald

    628 F. App'x 761 (Fed. Cir. 2016)

    We have jurisdiction "to review and decide any challenge to the validity of any statute or regulation or any interpretation thereof . . . and to interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, to the extent presented and necessary to a decision." Wanless v. Shinseki, 618 F.3d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting 38 U.S.C. § 7292(c)). "Absent a constitutional issue, however, we lack the jurisdiction to 'review (A) a challenge to a factual determination, or (B) a challenge to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case.'"

  10. Williams v. McDonald

    635 F. App'x 888 (Fed. Cir. 2015)

    We have jurisdiction "to review and decide any challenge to the validity of any statute or regulation or any interpretation thereof . . . and to interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, to the extent presented and necessary to a decision." Wanless v. Shinseki, 618 F.3d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing 38 U.S.C. § 7292(c)). "Absent a constitutional issue, however, we lack the jurisdiction to 'review (A) a challenge to a factual determination, or (B) a challenge to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case.'"