US District Court for the District of Idaho Social Security Cases
Cases 31 - 40 of 888
Hyde v. Commissioner of Social Security
as 1:2024cv00035
Petitioner:
Nichole Leann Hyde
Respondent:
Commissioner of Social Security
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)
Robinson v. Commissioner of Social Security
as 4:2024cv00026
Petitioner:
Amy Mae Robinson
Respondent:
Commissioner of Social Security
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)
Banks v. O'Malley
as 4:2024cv00002
Plaintiff:
Julie A Banks
Defendant:
Martin O'Malley
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 416 Denial of Social Security Benefits
Appleton v. Kijakazi
as 1:2023cv00582
Plaintiff:
Michael Allen Appleton
Defendant:
Kilolo Kijakazi
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)
Raatz v. Commissioner of Social Security
as 4:2023cv00573
Petitioner:
Kristen Dawn Raatz
Respondent:
Commissioner of Social Security
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)
Jelaco v. Kijakazi
as 1:2023cv00562
Plaintiff:
Nichole Jelaco
Defendant:
Kilolo Kijakazi
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)
Perotto v. Commissioner of Social Security
as 4:2023cv00542
Plaintiff:
Sherry Gay Perotto
Defendant:
Commissioner of Social Security
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)
Peterson v. Kijakazi
as 2:2023cv00543
Plaintiff:
Robert E. Peterson
Defendant:
Kilolo Kijakazi
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)
Shoop v. Commissioner of Social Security
as 1:2023cv00534
Petitioner:
Jay Shoop
Respondent:
Commissioner of Social Security
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)
Joslin v. Commissioner of Social Security
as 4:2023cv00533
Petitioner:
Katherine Elizabeth Macka Joslin
Respondent:
Commissioner of Social Security
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)
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.
