Simpson v. Colvin
Plaintiff: Leah Nicole Simpson
Defendant: Carolyn W. Colvin
Case Number: 1:2013cv00112
Filed: April 19, 2013
Court: US District Court for the Western District of North Carolina
Office: Asheville Office
County: Transylvania
Presiding Judge: Dennis Howell
Presiding Judge: Martin Reidinger
Nature of Suit: Social Security: DIWC/DIWW
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 206 Social Security Benefits
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
September 9, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 12 CLERK'S JUDGMENT is hereby entered in accordance with the Court's Order dated 9/9/2013. Signed by Clerk, Frank G. Johns. (khm)
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 North Carolina Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Simpson 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: Leah Nicole Simpson
Represented By: Stanford K. Clontz
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
Represented By: Hugh Dun Rappaport
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?