Satterfield v. Astrue

Plaintiff: Janice Satterfield
Defendant: Michael Astrue
Case Number: 2:2011cv00112
Filed: January 26, 2011
Court: Utah District Court
Office: Central Office
County: Iron
Presiding Judge: Dee Benson
Nature of Suit: Supplemental Security Income
Cause of Action: 42:0405
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
October 31, 2011 18 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION: Commissioner's Decision is hereby ordered REVERSED AND REMANDED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Samuel Alba on 10/31/11. (alp)
March 15, 2012 25 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION granting 20 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Magistrate Judge Samuel Alba on 03/14/2012. (asp)

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 Utah District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Satterfield v. Astrue
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Janice Satterfield
Represented By: Natalie L. Bolli-Jones
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Michael Astrue
Represented By: Stephanie Lynn Fishkin Kiley
Represented By: Amy J. Oliver
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 [ 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.