Hackworthy v. Astrue
Petitioner: Robert Hackworthy
Respondent: Michael Astrue
Case Number: 2:2007cv00156
Filed: April 4, 2007
Court: US District Court for the District of Idaho
Office: CDA Office
County: Kootenai
Presiding Judge: Mikel H. Williams
Nature of Suit: Social Security: SSID Tit. XVI
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 416 Denial of Social Security Benefits
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 23, 2008 Opinion or Order Filing 19 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER affirming the Commissioner's decision 1 Petition for Review filed by Robert Hackworthy. Signed by Judge Candy W Dale. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by dks)
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 Idaho District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Hackworthy v. Astrue
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Robert Hackworthy
Represented By: Mark B Jones
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 ]
Respondent: Michael Astrue
Represented By: Joanne P Rodriguez
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?