context: Our jurisdiction, like that of all federal courts other than the Supreme Court, is established solely by Congress, not the Court. As my colleagues seem to admit, the requirement in our Court for a case or controversy is an important prudential rule wisely adopted by the Court in its formative year, but it is not in our jurisdictional statute.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 2 Vet.App. 252, 254
citation_a.parenthetical: noting that this Court is "not formally bound by" the case or controversy requirement but "nevertheless, adheres to it"
citation_a.sentence: See Mokal v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 12, 15 (1990) (adopting “as a matter of policy the jurisdictional' restrictions of the Article III case or controversy rubric”); see also Padgett v. Nicholson, 473 F.3d 1364, 1370 (Fed.Cir.2007) (noting that this Court is “not formally bound by” the case or controversy requirement but “nevertheless, adheres to it”). Accordingly, although application of the case or controversy requirement is not discretionary absent Mokal being overturned by the en banc Court or statute, Bethea v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 252, 254 (1992), dismissal under this important prudential rule nevertheless is not a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. 49 U.S. at 449; cf. Henderson v. Shinseki, - U.S. -, -, 131 S.Ct. 1197, 1206, 179 L.Ed.2d 159 (2011) (finding that 38 U.S.C. § 7266(a) was an “important procedural rule” but not jurisdictional); see also Breedlove v. Shinseki, 24 Vet.App. 7, 17 n. 5 (2010) (per curiam order) (citing Zevalkink v. Brown, 102 F.3d 1236, 1244 (Fed.Cir.1996) and noting that the Court does not lack jurisdiction upon the death of the claimant).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 1 Vet.App. 12, 15
citation_b.parenthetical: adopting "as a matter of policy the jurisdictional' restrictions of the Article III case or controversy rubric"
citation_b.sentence: See Mokal v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 12, 15 (1990) (adopting “as a matter of policy the jurisdictional' restrictions of the Article III case or controversy rubric”); see also Padgett v. Nicholson, 473 F.3d 1364, 1370 (Fed.Cir.2007) (noting that this Court is “not formally bound by” the case or controversy requirement but “nevertheless, adheres to it”). Accordingly, although application of the case or controversy requirement is not discretionary absent Mokal being overturned by the en banc Court or statute, Bethea v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 252, 254 (1992), dismissal under this important prudential rule nevertheless is not a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. 49 U.S. at 449; cf. Henderson v. Shinseki, - U.S. -, -, 131 S.Ct. 1197, 1206, 179 L.Ed.2d 159 (2011) (finding that 38 U.S.C. § 7266(a) was an “important procedural rule” but not jurisdictional); see also Breedlove v. Shinseki, 24 Vet.App. 7, 17 n. 5 (2010) (per curiam order) (citing Zevalkink v. Brown, 102 F.3d 1236, 1244 (Fed.Cir.1996) and noting that the Court does not lack jurisdiction upon the death of the claimant).