Johnson v. Astrue

Plaintiff: Tamara Johnson
Defendant: Michael J. Astrue
Case Number: 9:2011cv00123
Filed: September 9, 2011
Court: Montana District Court
Office: Missoula Office
County: RAVALLI
Referring Judge: Jeremiah C. Lynch
Presiding Judge: Donald W. Molloy
Nature of Suit: Retirement and Survivors Benefits
Cause of Action: 42:402
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
May 30, 2012 25 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER granting in part and denying in part 13 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 20 Motion for Summary Judgment; adopting Findings and Recommendations re 24 Findings and Recommendations. The Commissioner's decision is REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this Order. Signed by Judge Donald W. Molloy on 5/30/2012. (dle)

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: Johnson v. Astrue
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Tamara Johnson
Represented By: Thomas C. Bulman
Represented By: Owen D. Thilly
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.