Jensen v. Astrue
Plaintiff: Sandy Lou Jensen
Defendant: Michael J. Astrue
Case Number: 2:2008cv01052
Filed: June 4, 2008
Court: US District Court for the District of Arizona
Office: Social Security: DIWC/DIWW Office
County: Maricopa
Presiding Judge: Neil V Wake
Nature of Suit: None
Cause of Action: U.S. Government Defendant
Jury Demanded By: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWW)

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
March 19, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 23 ORDER denying 17 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of Defendant against Plaintff, Plaintiff take nothing. The Clerk shall terminate this action. Signed by Judge Neil V Wake on 3/18/09.(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: Jensen v. Astrue
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Sandy Lou Jensen
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | 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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | 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?