Genereux v. Colvin
Plaintiff: Maureen Shea Genereux
Defendant: Carolyn W. Colvin
Case Number: 1:2015cv13227
Filed: August 25, 2015
Court: US District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Office: Boston Office
County: Plymouth
Presiding Judge: George A. OToole
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
March 31, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 18 Judge George A. OToole, Jr: OPINION AND ORDER entered denying 12 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; granting 16 Motion for Order Affirming Decision of Commissioner (Lyness, Paul) (Main Document 18 replaced on 3/31/2017) (Lyness, Paul).
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 Massachusetts District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Genereux v. Colvin
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Maureen Shea Genereux
Represented By: Stephen L. Raymond
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: Carolyn W. Colvin
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?