Skip to main content
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location
Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select

Find a Lawyer

More Options

Veterans Matter, Uruguay Round Agreement Act Issue

By FindLaw Staff on April 23, 2010 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

Butler v. Shinseki, No. 09-7066, concerned a challenge to the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims denying petitioner's request for earlier effective dates for various service-connected foot disabilities.  Because factual findings of when a disability was claimed or service connection established are not subject to review by the Federal Circuit, the denial is affirmed.  Furthermore, these unreviewable factual findings appear to provide an independent basis for the Veterans Court decision.

Thyssenkrupp Acciai Speciali Terni S.P.A. v. US, No. 09-1363, concerned a challenge to a decision of the United States Court of International Trade that the Department of Commerce reasonably interpreted section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreement Act in declining to correct an alleged clerical error in the original investigation that was not raised in the World Trade Organization dispute settlement proceeding.  The Court of International Trade's decision is ultimately affirmed as the court properly applied the Chevron framework to its analysis of Commerce's interpretation of the statute. 

Related Resources:

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.

Or contact an attorney near you:
Copied to clipboard