Holmes v. Colvin
Plaintiff: Elizabeth D. Holmes
Defendant: Carolyn W. Colvin
Case Number: 5:2015cv05069
Filed: September 23, 2015
Court: US District Court for the District of South Dakota
Office: Western Division Office
County: Pennington
Presiding Judge: Jeffrey L. Viken
Nature of Suit: Supplemental Security Income
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 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
December 10, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 29 REDACTED ORDER granting in part and denying in part 22 Motion for Attorney Fees; denying as moot 26 Motion to Amend. Signed by Chief Judge Jeffrey L. Viken on 12/10/18. (SB)
March 27, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 19 ORDER granting 13 Motion to Reverse. Signed by Chief Judge Jeffrey L. Viken on 3/27/17. (SB)
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 South Dakota District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Holmes 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: Elizabeth D. Holmes
Represented By: Catherine G. Ratliff
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
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?