Adams v. Colvin
Plaintiff: Glenn Earl Adams
Defendant: Carolyn W. Colvin
Case Number: 3:2015cv01061
Filed: July 10, 2015
Court: US District Court for the District of Connecticut
Office: New Haven Office
County: Tolland
Presiding Judge: William I. Garfinkel
Nature of Suit: Supplemental Security Income
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 405
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
September 22, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 20 ORDER granting 13 Motion to Remand to Agency; denying 15 Motion to Affirm the Decision of the Commissioner for the reasons set forth in the attached Ruling. Signed by Judge William I. Garfinkel on 9/22/16. (Cates, S)
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Connecticut District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Adams v. Colvin
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Carolyn W. Colvin
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Glenn Earl Adams
Represented By: Karl E. Osterhout
Represented By: Olia Yelner
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?