Brown v. Astrue

Plaintiff: Quinn Brown
Defendant: Michael J. Astrue
Case Number: 2:2007cv01666
Filed: August 30, 2007
Court: Arizona District Court
Office: Phoenix Division Office
County: Maricopa
Presiding Judge: David G Campbell
Nature of Suit: Social Security: DIWC/DIWW
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)
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
December 18, 2008 35 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER granting in part and denying in part 19 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and 30 Defendant's Motion to Remand to Social Security Administration as set forth in this order. Defendant's administrative decision denying benefits is vacated. The case is remanded to Defendant for further proceedings. The Clerk shall terminate this action. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 12/18/08.(LSP)

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

Search for this case: Brown v. Astrue
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Quinn Brown
Represented By: Eric Glenn Slepian
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?