In light of this statutory authority, the Court’s previous exercise of that statutory authority in precedential actions, and the fact that Congress has not acted to change that statutory authority (but, indeed, has even indicated its contemplation of Court remands with retention of jurisdiction), the Court should reaffirm that its authority under section 7252(a) “to remand ... as appropriate” authorizes it to retain general jurisdiction over a case remanded to the BVA. In addition, as discussed in parts II.C.2. and 3., below, the Court also has the authority to retain general jurisdiction over remands to the BVA under a general jurisdictional statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2106, as well as pursuant to the inherent powers of the Court. Cf. Jones (Joseph) v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 596, 606 (1991) (<HOLDING>). 2. Authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2106.
holding no appeal lies for order to punish for contempt holding that a statutory limitation on punishment for indirect criminal contempt was unconstitutional as it offended the inherent authority of courts to punish such affronts holding that this court has inherent as well as express statutory authority to punish for contempt holding that in addition to statutory contempt powers city courts have inherent contempt power recognizing inherent power of supreme court independent of statutory authority to punish for contempt of court