Tarkington v. Astrue

Plaintiff: Margo Tarkington
Defendant: Michael J. Astrue
Case Number: 2:2008cv00815
Filed: April 29, 2008
Court: Arizona District Court
Office: Social Security: DIWC/DIWW Office
County: Maricopa
Presiding Judge: David G Campbell
Nature of Suit: None
Cause of Action: U.S. Government Defendant
Jury Demanded By: 42:205 Denial Social Security Benefits

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed#Document Text
May 8, 2009 30 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER Defendant's administrative decision denying benefits is reversed. The case is remanded to Defendant for an award of benefits; denying 27 Defendant's Motion for Remand to the extent it seeks a remand for further proceedings. The Clerk is directed to terminate this action. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 5/8/09.(TLJ)

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: Tarkington v. Astrue
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Margo Tarkington
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?