Hooks v. Astrue et al

Plaintiff: Betty Jean Hooks
Defendant: Michael J. Astrue
Case Number: 1:2011cv00243
Filed: May 12, 2011
Court: Alabama Southern District Court
Office: Mobile Office
County: Mobile
Referring Judge: William E. Cassady
Presiding Judge: Charles R. Butler
Nature of Suit: Supplemental Security Income
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
July 31, 2012 27 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 24 Motion for Attorney Fees (EAJA). Signed by Magistrate Judge William E. Cassady on 7/31/2012. (srr)
April 11, 2012 23 Opinion or Order of the Court JUDGMENT entered in accordance with the memorandum opinion and order entered on this date. Signed by Magistrate Judge William E. Cassady on 4/10/2012. (eec)

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: Hooks v. Astrue et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
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 ]
Plaintiff: Betty Jean Hooks
Represented By: Quinn E. Brock
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?