In re: Albrecht v. Astrue et al

Plaintiff: Dean W Albrecht
Defendant: Michael J. Astrue
Case Number: 0:2011cv01017
Filed: April 20, 2011
Court: Minnesota District Court
Office: DMN Office
County: Houston
Referring Judge: Steven E Rau
Presiding Judge: Susan Richard Nelson
Nature of Suit: Retirement and Survivors Benefits
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
August 3, 2012 18 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER: The Report and Recommendation 14 is ADOPTED; Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment 8 is DENIED; and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 10 is GRANTED. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 08/03/2012. (jmf)

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 Minnesota District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: In re: Albrecht v. Astrue et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Dean W Albrecht
Represented By: Wayne G Nelson
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
Represented By: Lonnie F Bryan
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.