Ramos v. Astrue
Plaintiff: Patricia Ramos
Defendant: Michael J Astrue
Case Number: 3:2010cv01495
Filed: July 30, 2010
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of Texas
Office: Dallas Office
County: Johnson
Presiding Judge: Jane J Boyle
Presiding Judge: Jeff Kaplan
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
June 21, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 24 Memorandum Opinion and Order: The hearing decision is reversed, and ths case is remanded to the Commissioner of Social Security for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. (Ordered by Magistrate Judge Jeff Kaplan on 6/21/2011) (vdf)
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 Texas Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Ramos 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: Patricia Ramos
Represented By: Julie L Glover
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
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?