LaCoss v. Astrue

Plaintiff: Ronald LaCoss
Defendant: Michael J. Astrue
Case Number: 4:2010cv00063
Filed: September 30, 2010
Court: Montana District Court
Office: Great Falls Office
County: CASCADE
Presiding Judge: Sam E Haddon
Referring Judge: Keith Strong
Nature of Suit: Disability Insurance
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
September 19, 2011 27 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: 1) Plaintiff's 13 Motion for Sumamary Judgment is GRANTED; 2) Defendant's 21 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED; 3) This case is REMANDED to the Commissioner of Social Security for an award of benefits. Signed by Judge Sam E Haddon on 9/19/2011. (SLR, )

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

Search for this case: LaCoss v. Astrue
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Ronald LaCoss
Represented By: William O. Bronson
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 ]
Defendant: Michael J. Astrue
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.