Casanova v. Astrue

Defendant: Michael J. Astrue
Plaintiff: Alicia Casanova
Case Number: 1:2013cv00676
Filed: January 28, 2013
Court: Illinois Northern District Court
Office: Chicago Office
County: Cook
Presiding Judge: James F. Holderman
Nature of Suit: Social Security: DIWC/DIWW
Cause of Action: 42:205 Denial 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
July 30, 2014 39 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/30/2014. Mailed notice.(jj, )
January 30, 2013 6 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable James F. Holderman on 1/30/2013. (ao,)

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: Casanova 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 J. Astrue
Represented By: AUSA-SSA
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: Alicia Casanova
Represented By: Barry Alan Schultz
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.