Stevens v. Astrue

Plaintiff: Freda Mae Stevens
Defendant: Michael J Astrue
Case Number: 4:2009cv00444
Filed: August 13, 2009
Court: Arizona District Court
Office: Tucson Division Office
County: Pima
Presiding Judge: Bernardo P Velasco
Nature of Suit: None
Cause of Action: 28:7422 Appeal from Administrative Decision
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
June 20, 2011 38 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER denying 35 Motion for Attorney Fees Pursuant to EAJA. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Plaintiff may renew his motion for attorney's fees within 14 days. Such motion must be supported by contemporaneous, supporting documentation as to the actual time expended in this case, submitted, and signed under oath. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bernardo P Velasco on 6/17/11. (See attached PDF for complete information.)(KAH)

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: Stevens v. Astrue
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Freda Mae Stevens
Represented By: David Anaise
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?