Foos v. Colvin

Plaintiff: Shirley Lorraine Foos
Defendant: Carolyn W Colvin
Case Number: 2:2015cv00154
Filed: January 29, 2015
Court: Arizona District Court
Office: Phoenix Division Office
County: La Paz
Presiding Judge: G Murray Snow
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
March 31, 2016 20 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that the Commissioner's decision is affirmed. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly and terminate this action. Signed by Magistrate Judge John Z Boyle on 3/31/2016. (REK)

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: Foos v. Colvin
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Carolyn W Colvin
Represented By: Michael A Johns(Designation Assistant US Attorney)
Represented By: John Christopher LaMont(Designation Assistant US Attorney)
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: Shirley Lorraine Foos
Represented By: Tye Sherman Smith(Designation Retained)
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?