# Stanley v. Principi

> United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · September 26, 2002 · 16 Vet. App. 356

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9502307

## Case

- **Full name:** James W. STANLEY, Jr., Appellant, v. Anthony J. PRINCIPI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee
- **Court:** United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
- **Decided:** September 26, 2002
- **Citations:** 16 Vet. App. 356; 2002 U.S. Vet. App. LEXIS 702; 2002 WL 31165137
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Holdaway
- **Judges:** Farley, Holdaway, Per Curiam, Steinberg
- **Cited by:** 2 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9502307

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- applying the holding in Scates to non-direct-payment fee agreements

## Opinion text

HOLDAWAY, Judge,
concurring:
This case was remanded by a decision of the Federal Circuit in March 2002; the mandate from that decision was issued in May. On May 31, a panel was selected to consider the mandate and the parties so notified. Neither party has attempted to file a pleading in connection with the mandate to this Court. While our rules certainly require no such pleading, neither do they forbid it. It is well known that this Court is extremely liberal in permitting pleadings not specifically required by the rules. Had such a pleading been filed it surely would have been accepted. It is the responsibility of counsel, not the Court, to make the decision as to whether a party needs to or should file such a pleading and to frame the issues in connection with that pleading. It is simply not true, as our colleague implies, that the Court has some responsibility to frame the issues for the parties and goad them into filing briefs. They have been free to do so at any time within the past three and a half months. The parties have had more than an ample opportunity to be heard. Further, I have found that briefs produced as a result of such goading by this Court, particularly where the Court attempts to “frame” the issue in so-called briefing orders, have not been particularly helpful. Finally, I assure both parties that if reconsideration is requested, this judge and I’m certain I speak for Judge Farley as well, will have absolutely no difficulty in giving such a motion calm and dispassionate consideration.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9502307. Public record. Not legal advice.