findings or legal conclusions. Rather, as we specifically pointed out in Bond, supra, a joint motion premised upon an agreement by the parties “effectively moots the case or controversy” before the Court. 2 Vet.App. at 377. In such a circumstance, the Court does not evaluate and adjudicate the arguments or positions of the parties prior to disposition on thé merits, but merely dismisses the appéal. See Hines v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 309, 311 (1994); Bond, 2 Vet.App. at 377. Because the Clerk’s order was administrative rather than adjudicatory and did not incorporate the parties’ joint motion, the Board’s August 2001 remand instructions do not contravene any aspect of the Clerk’s order and there is no violation for the Court to address. Cf. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet.App. 268, 271 (1998) (<HOLDING>) Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is
holding that claimants stipulations which fully protected the shipowners right to seek limited liability and claimants agreement to abide by an admiralty court determination of the right to limit were adequate to lift an injunction of state court proceedings holding that the district court was authorized to remand the proceedings to the board where the board failed to make required findings holding that decision of this court unless or until overturned by this court en banc the  federal circuit or the supreme court is a decision of the court on the date it is issued any rulings interpretations or conclusions of law contained in such a decision are authoritative and binding as of the date the decision is issued and are to be considered and when applicable are to be followed by va agencies of original jurisdiction the board and the secretary in adjudicating and resolving claims holding that a board decision is required to vest the court of veterans appeals with jurisdiction over a claimants appeal holding that claimants have an enforceable right to compliance with specific remand instructions when such are issued by the board or court