InsideGov
Supreme Court · Decisions

Doretha H. Henderson, Authorized Representative of David L. Henderson, Deceased, Petitioner v. Eric K. Shineski, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

The Court held that the deadline for filing a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims does not have jurisdictional consequences.

562 U.S. 428 · No. 09-1036 · 2010 term · Roberts Court

Decided Mar 1, 2011 · argued Dec 6, 2010

Civil rights · Military: veteran

Majority opinion: Samuel Alito

The voteMajority

8–08 in the majority, 0 in dissent

No dissent (9–0)

Reversed and remanded. Doretha H. Henderson, Authorized Representative of David L. Henderson, Deceased, Petitioner won.

What this ruling means

Reversed and remanded: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit and sent the case back to that court for further proceedings that follow the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Doretha H. Henderson, Authorized Representative of David L. Henderson, Deceased, Petitioner was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.

From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.

Report a correction

Summary

The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.

Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the deadline for filing a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims does not have jurisdictional consequences.

Read the full article on Wikipedia

Data notes

The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.

Report a correction

How the justices voted

Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2010 term. Filled: the 8 in the majority. Hollow: the 0 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.

More liberalMore conservativeMedianGinsburgSotomayorBreyerKennedyJ. RobertsAlitoScaliaThomas

Majority(8)

Dissent(0)

  • None.

Did not take part: Elena Kagan.

Data notes

Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.

Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.

Report a correction

The parties

Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.

Petitioner
Doretha H. Henderson, Authorized Representative of David L. Henderson, Deceased, PetitionerVeteran
Respondent
Eric K. Shineski, Secretary of Veterans AffairsVeterans' Administration
Reached the Court by
Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes

The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.

Report a correction

The law at issue

The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.

Provision
38 USCA 7266
Kind of law
Infrequently litigated statutes
Decided by
Interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order; Statutory construction
Data notes

The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.

Report a correction

Timeline

What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.

  1. Mar 1, 2011DecidedDecided · Decided 8–0: reversed and remanded. Doretha H. Henderson, Authorized Representative of David L. Henderson, Deceased, Petitioner won.
  2. Dec 6, 2010ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
  3. Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
  4. Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit: affirmed, with a dissent.
  5. Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals.
Data notes

From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.

Report a correction

Other decisions on the same issue

33 other argued cases since 1946 on military: veteran, newest first.

  1. Soto v. United States145 S. Ct. 1677Jun 12, 2025 · 145 S. Ct. 1677Civil rights9–0Unanimous band

  2. Rudisill v. McDonough601 U.S. 294Apr 16, 2024 · 601 U.S. 294Civil rights7–27–2 band

  3. Arellano v. McDonough598 U.S. 1Jan 23, 2023 · 598 U.S. 1Civil rights9–0Unanimous band

  4. George v. McDonough2022 U.S. LEXIS 2944Jun 15, 2022 · 2022 U.S. LEXIS 2944Civil rights6–36–3 band

  5. Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs v. Woodrow F. Sanders556 U.S. 396Apr 21, 2009 · 556 U.S. 396Civil rights6–36–3 band

  6. Jesse Brown, Secretary of Veterans Affairs v. Fred P. Gardner513 U.S. 115Dec 12, 1994 · 513 U.S. 115Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  7. Traynor v. Turnage, Administrator, Veterans' Administration, et al.485 U.S. 535Apr 20, 1988 · 485 U.S. 535Civil rights4–36–3 band
  8. Monroe v. Standard Oil Co.452 U.S. 549Jun 17, 1981 · 452 U.S. 549Civil rights5–45–4 band
  9. Coffy v. Republic Steel Corp.447 U.S. 191Jun 10, 1980 · 447 U.S. 191Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  10. Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe et al.Landmark · Native American law435 U.S. 191Mar 6, 1978 · 435 U.S. 191Civil rights6–27–2 band

  11. Alabama Power Co. v. Davis431 U.S. 581Jun 6, 1977 · 431 U.S. 581Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  12. Foster v. Dravo Corp.420 U.S. 92Feb 18, 1975 · 420 U.S. 92Civil rights8–0Unanimous band
  13. Hernandez et al. v. Veterans' Administration et al.415 U.S. 391Mar 4, 1974 · 415 U.S. 391Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  14. Johnson, Administrator of Veterans' Affairs, et al. v. Robison415 U.S. 361Mar 4, 1974 · 415 U.S. 361Civil rights8–18–1 band

  15. Accardi et al. v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co.383 U.S. 225Feb 28, 1966 · 383 U.S. 225Civil rights8–0Unanimous band
  16. Brooks v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co.376 U.S. 182Feb 17, 1964 · 376 U.S. 182Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  17. Tilton et al. v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co.376 U.S. 169Feb 17, 1964 · 376 U.S. 169Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  18. United States v. Shimer367 U.S. 374Jun 12, 1961 · 367 U.S. 374Civil rights7–27–2 band
  19. United States, Trustee, v. Oregon366 U.S. 643May 29, 1961 · 366 U.S. 643Civil rights7–27–2 band
  20. Bell et al. v. United States366 U.S. 393May 22, 1961 · 366 U.S. 393Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  21. McKinney v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Co. et al.357 U.S. 265Jun 23, 1958 · 357 U.S. 265Civil rights7–27–2 band
  22. United States v. Plesha et al.352 U.S. 202Jan 14, 1957 · 352 U.S. 202Civil rights6–36–3 band
  23. United States ex rel. Toth v. Quarles, Secretary of the Air Force350 U.S. 11Nov 7, 1955 · 350 U.S. 11Civil rights6–36–3 band

  24. Diehl v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Co. et al.348 U.S. 960Mar 14, 1955 · 348 U.S. 960Civil rights7–18–1 band
  25. Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman et al.345 U.S. 330Apr 6, 1953 · 345 U.S. 330Civil rights9–0Unanimous band

  26. Elder et al. v. Brannan, Secretary of Agriculture341 U.S. 277May 7, 1951 · 341 U.S. 277Civil rights8–18–1 band
  27. Oakley v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. et al.338 U.S. 278Nov 14, 1949 · 338 U.S. 278Civil rights8–0Unanimous band
  28. Aeronautical Industrial District Lodge 727 v. Campbell et al.337 U.S. 521Jun 20, 1949 · 337 U.S. 521Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  29. United States ex rel. Hirshberg v. Cooke, Commanding Officer336 U.S. 210Feb 28, 1949 · 336 U.S. 210Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  30. United States v. Zazove334 U.S. 602Jun 14, 1948 · 334 U.S. 602Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  31. Hilton v. Sullivan, Secretary of the Navy, et al.334 U.S. 323Jun 1, 1948 · 334 U.S. 323Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  32. Mitchell et al., Members of the Civil Service Commission, v. Cohen333 U.S. 411Mar 8, 1948 · 333 U.S. 411Civil rights8–18–1 band
  33. Trailmobile Company et al. v. Whirls331 U.S. 40Apr 14, 1947 · 331 U.S. 40Civil rights7–27–2 band
Data notes

Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.

Report a correction

Official record

Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.