Dyas v. Astrue

Plaintiff: Collene W. Dyas
Defendant: Michael J. Astrue
Case Number: 1:2010cv00035
Filed: January 19, 2010
Court: Alabama Southern District Court
Office: Mobile Office
County: Baldwin
Presiding Judge: Callie V. S. Granade
Referring Judge: Katherine P. Nelson
Nature of Suit: Social Security: SSID Tit. XIV
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)
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
October 19, 2010 20 Opinion or Order of the Court Order that the Commissioner's decision denying plaintiff benefits is not supported by substantial evidence, and is therefore REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings, pursuant to sentence four, 42:405(g). Signed by Magistrate Judge Katherine P. Nelson on 10/19/10. (srr)

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

Search for this case: Dyas v. Astrue
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Collene W. Dyas
Represented By: Byron A. Lassiter
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?