Hagedorn v. Astrue
Plaintiff: Michael Blain Hagedorn
Defendant: Michael J. Astrue
Case Number: 2:2012cv00085
Filed: November 8, 2012
Court: US District Court for the Western District of North Carolina
Office: Bryson City Office
County: Jackson
Nature of Suit: Social Security: DIWC/DIWW
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)
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 2, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 23 ORDER granting 22 Motion for Attorney Fees under EAJA. Signed by District Judge Richard Voorhees on 3/2/16. (ejb)
July 20, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 21 CLERK'S JUDGMENT is hereby entered in accordance with the Court's Order dated 07/20/2015. Signed by Clerk, Frank G. Johns on 07/20/2015. (thh)
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: Hagedorn v. Astrue
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Michael Blain Hagedorn
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: Michael J. Astrue
Represented By: Russell R. Bowling
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?