Cases 81 - 90 of 682
Moore v. Astrue
as 2:2012cv00021
Defendant:
Michael J Astrue
Plaintiff:
Tollie D. Moore
Interested Party:
SSA General Counsel
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)
Shields v. Astrue
as 4:2012cv00031
Defendant:
Michael J. Astrue
Interested Party:
SSA General Counsel
Plaintiff:
Steve D. Shields
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)
Cole v. Astrue
as 7:2012cv00350
Defendant:
Michael J. Astrue
Plaintiff:
Julia Annabell Cole
Interested Party:
SSA General Counsel
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)
Davis v. Astrue
as 7:2012cv00334
Defendant:
Michael J. Astrue
Plaintiff:
Pamela W. Davis
Interested Party:
SSA General Counsel
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 205 Denial Social Security Benefits
Felder v. Astrue
as 1:2012cv00041
Defendant:
Michael J. Astrue
Plaintiff:
Elaine Chivon Felder
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)
Ramsey v. Astrue
as 2:2012cv00017
Defendant:
Michael J. Astrue
Plaintiff:
Kent Jerome Ramsey
Interested Party:
SSA General Counsel
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)
Bradley v. Astrue
as 5:2012cv00074
Defendant:
Michael J Astrue
Plaintiff:
Melissa Bradley
Interested Party:
SSA General Counsel
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)
Collins v. Astrue
as 2:2012cv00016
Defendant:
Michael J Astrue
Plaintiff:
Mark Collins
Interested Party:
SSA General Counsel
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)
Wright v. Astrue
as 7:2012cv00313
Defendant:
Michael J. Astrue
Interested Party:
SSA General Counsel
Plaintiff:
Linda Wright
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)
Jones v. Astrue
as 5:2012cv00072
Defendant:
Michael J. Astrue
Plaintiff:
Caryn L. Jones
Interested Party:
SSA General Counsel
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)
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.
