Cases 91 - 100 of 3,008
Simmons v. Astrue
as 3:2013cv00034
Defendant:
Michael J. Astrue
Plaintiff:
Shantel H Simmons
Interested Party:
Social Security Administration
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)
Woods v. Astrue
as 4:2013cv00120
Plaintiff:
Cecelia Woods
Defendant:
Michael J Astrue
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)
FILING ERROR
as 3:2013cv00011
Defendant:
Michael J. Astrue
Plaintiff:
Patricia Davis
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 205 Denial Social Security Benefits
Mendoza v. Astrue
as 3:2013cv00012
Defendant:
Cmr. Social Security Michael J. Astrue
Plaintiff:
April Mendoza
Notice Only Party:
Social Security Liaison and U.S. Attorney Liaison
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 205 Denial Social Security Benefits
McManus v. Astrue
as 1:2013cv00007
Plaintiff:
Johnny McManus
Defendant:
Michael J. Astrue
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWW)
Alvarado v. Astrue
as 3:2013cv00010
Plaintiff:
Jose Alfredo Alvarado
Defendant:
Cmr. Social Security Michael J. Astrue
Notice Only Party:
Social Security Liaison and U.S. Attorney Liaison
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 206 Social Security Benefits
Melancon v. Astrue
as 3:2013cv00021
Defendant:
Michael J. Astrue
Plaintiff:
Nancy Melancon
Interested Party:
Social Security Administration
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 402 Social Security Benefits
Griffith v. Astrue et al
as 3:2013cv00014
Plaintiff:
Walter Excell Griffith, Jr.
Defendant:
Michael J. Astrue and SSA General Counsel
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 416 Denial of Social Security Benefits
Richard v. Astrue
as 5:2013xc00006
Plaintiff:
Kenneth Allen Richard
Defendant:
Michael J. Astrue
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 205 Denial Social Security Benefits
Jones v. Astrue
as 4:2013cv00034
Plaintiff:
Rachelle H. Jones
Defendant:
Michael J Astrue
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 205 Denial Social Security Benefits
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.
