Parker v. Astrue

Defendant: Michael Astrue
Plaintiff: Donna Parker
Case Number: 1:2013cv00114
Filed: January 7, 2013
Court: Illinois Northern District Court
Office: Chicago Office
County: Cook
Presiding Judge: Marvin E. Aspen
Nature of Suit: Social Security: DIWC/DIWW
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWW)
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
May 12, 2014 21 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER: For the reasons outlined in the order, Ms. Parker's motion for summary judgment for reversal or remand 17 is denied. Signed by the Honorable Susan E. Cox on 5/12/2014. Mailed notice (np, )

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 Illinois Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Parker v. Astrue
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Michael Astrue
Represented By: AUSA-SSA
Represented By: James Michael Kuhn
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Donna Parker
Represented By: Deborah Susan Spector
Represented By: Joseph Stephen Sellers
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 [ 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 were retrieved from PACER, and should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.