Garrett v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of

Defendant: Social Security Administration, Commissioner of
Plaintiff: Joe Garrett
Case Number: 6:2012cv01264
Filed: July 27, 2012
Court: Kansas District Court
Office: Wichita Office
County: Osage
Presiding Judge: Sam A. Crow
Nature of Suit: Supplemental Security Income
Cause of Action: 42:405
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
July 31, 2013 17 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. The judgment of the Commissioner is affirmed pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). See attached for more details. Signed by U.S. District Senior Judge Sam A. Crow on 7/31/2013. (bmw)

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 Kansas District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Garrett v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Social Security Administration, Commissioner of
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: Joe Garrett
Represented By: Kathleen E. Overton
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 should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.