motion only if it is filed under the Haas docket number, that view unduly limits the Court’s jurisdictional breadth in this matter. While we agree that the Court would have jurisdiction to consider such a motion in Haas, it does not follow that Haas is the only case in which the stay motion may be heard. Constitutionally, the propriety of the stay is a live case or controversy between the Secretary and Mr. Ribaudo that relates to the relief requested by Mr. Ri-baudo’s petition. See Ramsey v. Nicholson, 20 Vet.App. 223, 224 (2006) (per cu-riam order) (dismissing petition as moot because petitioners had obtained relief sought, i.e., the Secretary rescinded Board’s stay order and directed Board to resume adjudication of stayed claims); Waterhouse v. Principi, 3 Vet.App. 473, 475 (1992) (<HOLDING>); Mokal v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 12, 15 (1990)
holding that the rule announced in bailey v united states 516 us 137 116 sct 501 133 led2d 472 1995 applies retroactively on collateral review holding that the supreme courts interpretation of 18 usc  924c1 in bailey v united states 516 us 137 116 sct 501 133 led2d 472 1995 has retroactive application to cases on collateral review holding that proof of prejudice is generally a necessary but not sufficient element of a due process claim and that the due process inquiry must consider the reasons for  the prejudice quoting united states v lovasco 431 us 783 790 97 sct 2044 52 led2d 752 1977 holding that parties before court must personally have suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of the putative illegal conduct quoting valley forge christian coll v ams united for separation of church  state inc 454 us 464 472 102 sct 752 70 led2d 700 1982 holding that tangible materials seized during an unlawful search are inadmissible fruit of the poisonous tree quoting murray v united states 487 us 533 536 108 sct 2529101 led2d 472 1988