Nelson v. Astrue
Plaintiff: Stephen Nelson
Defendant: Michael Astrue
Case Number: 3:2012cv00818
Filed: March 19, 2012
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of Texas
Office: Dallas Office
County: Hunt
Presiding Judge: Jeff Kaplan
Presiding Judge: Sam A Lindsay
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
February 20, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 25 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER accepting 23 Findings and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge; granting 22 Defendant's Amended Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 20 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 2/20/2013) (axm)
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: Nelson 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: Stephen Nelson
Represented By: Laura Kathryn Funk
Represented By: Cheryl Chapman Langston
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 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?