Holloway v. Astrue (CONSENT)

Plaintiff: David Lamar Holloway
Defendant: Michael J. Astrue
Case Number: 2:2008cv00774
Filed: September 19, 2008
Court: Alabama Middle District Court
Office: Social Security: SSID Tit. XIV Office
County: Covington
Presiding Judge: Charles S. Coody
Nature of Suit: None
Cause of Action: U.S. Government Defendant
Jury Demanded By: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed#Document Text
September 22, 2009 26 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 18 Motion to Remand; This case will be reversed and remanded to the Commissioner with directions for an award of benefits. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 9/22/2009. Also mailed to SSA Office of Hearings and Appeals and SSA Chief Judge.(wcl, )

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 Alabama Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Holloway v. Astrue (CONSENT)
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: David Lamar Holloway
Represented By: Brian Roy Carmichael
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 should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?