This Appendix provides the dataset used in the Note, Codify Gardner. The table below lists the decisions that cited Gardner’s presumption, or the pro-veteran canon, between 2013 and 2023, as identified by editors of the Harvard Law Review.1
* * *
Was the Canon Determinative? | Case | Citation | Date |
No — No ambiguity.2 | Viegas v. Shinseki | 705 F.3d 1374, 1378–80 | 1/31/13 |
No — Marriage case controlled by state law. | Burden v. Shinseki | 727 F.3d 1161, 1169 | 7/16/13 |
No — Decided under Chevron and Auer. | Mason v. Shinseki | 743 F.3d 1370, 1374, 1376 & n.5 | 2/21/14 |
No — No ambiguity. | Spicer v. Shinseki | 752 F.3d 1367, 1371 | 5/30/14 |
No — Cited only in concurrence. | Johnson v. McDonald | 762 F.3d 1362, 1367 (O’Malley, J., concurring) | 8/6/14 |
No — Chevron trumps Gardner. | Nat’l Org. of Veterans’ Advocs., Inc. v. Sec’y of Veterans Affs. | 809 F.3d 1359, 1363 | 1/13/16 |
No — No ambiguity. | Sullivan v. McDonald | 815 F.3d 786, 790–92 | 3/8/16 |
Yes. | Hudgens v. McDonald | 823 F.3d 630, 637 | 5/18/16 |
No — No ambiguity, and the canon is otherwise inapplicable. | Parrott v. Shulkin | 851 F.3d 1242, 1251 | 3/13/17 |
No — Cited Gardner, but not for the canon. | Ollis v. Shulkin | 857 F.3d 1338, 1341–43 | 5/26/17 |
No — Cited in passing. | Gazelle v. Shulkin | 868 F.3d 1006, 1012 | 8/22/17 |
No — Cited only in dissent. | Parkinson v. DOJ | 874 F.3d 710, 722 (Linn, J., dissenting) | 10/26/17 |
No — Cited only in dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc. | Kisor v. Shulkin | 880 F.3d 1378, 1379 (O’Malley, J., dissenting) | 1/31/18 |
No — Cited in passing. | PDS Consultants, Inc. v. United States | 907 F.3d 1345, 1357 | 10/17/18 |
No — No ambiguity. | Procopio v. Wilkie | 913 F.3d 1371, 1380 | 1/29/19 |
No — No ambiguity. | Kisor v. McDonough | 995 F.3d 1316, 1325 | 8/12/20 |
No — No ambiguity. | Kisor v. Wilkie | 969 F.3d 1333, 1342 | 8/12/20 |
No — Referenced in passing. | Murphy v. Wilkie | 983 F.3d 1313, 1318 | 12/21/20 |
No — Cited only in noncontrolling opinions in relation to the denial of rehearing en banc. | Kisor v. McDonough | 995 F.3d 1347, 1348, 1360 (Hughes, J., concurring), 1361 (Dyk, J., concurring), 1366 (O’Malley, J., dissenting) | 4/30/21 |
No — Cited only in concurrence. | Arellano v. McDonough | 1 F.4th 1059, 1096 (Dyk, J., concurring in the judgment) | 6/17/21 |
No — Referenced in passing. | Taylor v. McDonough | 3 F.4th 1351, 1366–67 | 6/30/21 |
No — Cited for reenactment. | Mil.-Veterans Advoc. v. Sec’y of Veterans Affs. | 7 F.4th 1110, 1139 | 7/30/21 |
No — Cited only in dissent. | Buffington v. McDonough | 7 F.4th 1361, 1374 (O’Malley, J., dissenting) | 8/6/21 |
No — Cited in passing. | Nicely v. United States | 23 F.4th 1364, 1369 | 1/20/22 |
No — Argument not developed enough. | Veteran Warriors, Inc. v. Sec’y of Veterans Affs. | 29 F.4th 1320, 1327 n.4 | 3/25/22 |
Yes. | Nat’l Org. of Veterans’ Advocs., Inc. v. Sec’y of Veterans Affs. | 48 F.4th 1307, 1317 | 9/20/22 |
No — No ambiguity. | Rudisill v. McDonough | 55 F.4th 879, 887 | 12/15/22 |
No — No ambiguity. | Cranford v. McDonough | 55 F.4th 1325, 1328 | 12/19/22 |
No — No ambiguity. | Cooper v. McDonough | 57 F.4th 1366, 1373 | 1/23/23 |
No — No ambiguity. | Spicer v. McDonough | 61 F.4th 1360, 1363 | 3/8/23 |