Hofherr v. Commissioner of Social Security
| Nathan W.D. Hofherr |
| Commissioner of Social Security |
| SSA (Court Use Only) |
| 1:2022cv00029 |
| January 22, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Indiana |
| Susan L Collins |
| Philip P Simon |
| Social Security: RSI Tax Suits |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 405 Review of HHS Decision (RSI) |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 26, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 5
Summons Issued as to Commissioner of Social Security, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General. NOTE: The attached document is accessible by court personnel only. (jdb)
|
|
**NEW CASE** Judge Philip P Simon and Magistrate Judge Susan L Collins added. (jdb)
|
|
Filing 4
NOTICE of Appearance by Ann E Young on behalf of Nathan W.D. Hofherr (Young, Ann)
|
|
Filing 3
NOTICE of Appearance by Jason S Rodman on behalf of Nathan W.D. Hofherr (Rodman, Jason)
|
|
Filing 2
NOTICE of Appearance by Randal S Forbes on behalf of Nathan W.D. Hofherr (Forbes, Randal)
|
|
Filing 1
COMPLAINT to Review Decision of Commissioner of Social Security Administration against Commissioner of Social Security( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number AINNDC-4812017.), filed by Nathan W.D. Hofherr. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A Notice of Appeals Council Action, #2 Civil Cover Sheet, #3 Proposed Summons)(Forbes, Randal)
|
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 Indiana Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
