Jones v. Astrue

Plaintiff: Daryl L. Jones
Defendant: Michael J. Astrue
Case Number: 9:2010cv00117
Filed: October 13, 2010
Court: Montana District Court
Office: Missoula Office
County: FLATHEAD
Referring Judge: Jeremiah C. Lynch
Presiding Judge: Donald W. Molloy
Nature of Suit: Supplemental Security Income
Cause of Action: 42:1383
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 31, 2011 24 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER denying (17) Motion for Summary Judgment; granting (20) Motion for Summary Judgment in case 9:10-cv-00117-JCL; denying (19) Motion for Summary Judgment; granting (22) Motion for Summary Judgment in case 9:11-cv-00003-JCL Signed by Jeremiah C. Lynch on 10/31/2011. Associated Cases: 9:11-cv-00003-JCL, 9:10-cv-00117-JCL (CDH, )

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

Search for this case: Jones v. Astrue
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Daryl L. Jones
Represented By: Michael A. Bliven
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.