Joseph v. Astrue

Plaintiff: Tamara Joseph
Defendant: Michael J. Astrue
Case Number: 1:2011cv00191
Filed: May 10, 2011
Court: Rhode Island District Court
Office: Providence Office
County: Providence
Referring Judge: Lincoln D. Almond
Presiding Judge: William E Smith
Nature of Suit: Retirement and Survivors Benefits
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
April 23, 2012 15 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER terminating 7 Motion to Reverse Decision of the Commissioner; denying 11 Motion to Affirm the Decision of the Commissioner; granting 13 Motion to Reverse Decision of the Commissioner; adopting 14 Report and Recommendations. So Ordered by Judge William E. Smith on 4/23/12. (Jackson, Ryan)

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 Rhode Island District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Joseph v. Astrue
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Tamara Joseph
Represented By: Donna M. Nesselbush
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.