Washington v. Astrue
Plaintiff: Daniel Washington
Defendant: Michael J. Astrue
Case Number: 3:2010cv01538
Filed: September 28, 2010
Court: US District Court for the District of Connecticut
Office: New Haven Office
County: Fairfield
Presiding Judge: Christopher F. Droney
Nature of Suit: Supplemental Security Income
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 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
October 4, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 13 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 9 Motion to Reverse the Decision of the Commissioner, and denying 12 Motion to Affirm the Decision of the Commissioner. See attached opinion. Signed by Judge Thomas P. Smith on October 4, 2011. (Slitt, M.)
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 Connecticut District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Washington 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: Daniel Washington
Represented By: John P. Spilka
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?