Cases 1 - 10 of 14
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv02664
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 Job Discrimination (Race)
ADIE v. STEWART et al
as 2:2022cv07388
Plaintiff:
Norman Adie
Defendant:
Alexander James Stewart, Christine Stewart, Darin D. Pinto and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Breach of Contract
Stewart v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC
as 1:2019cv11411
Defendant:
GlaxoSmithKline, LLC
Plaintiff:
Christine Stewart
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Stewart v. Accord Healthcare, Inc.
as 2:2018cv08732
Plaintiff:
Christine Stewart
Defendant:
Accord Healthcare, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
STEWART v. ASTRAZENECA LP et al
as 2:2018cv03841
Plaintiff:
CHLOE CHRISTINE STEWART
Defendant:
ASTRAZENECA LP, ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, MERCK & CO. INC. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Stewart v. Schlumberger Technology Corporation
as 4:2017cv03458
Plaintiff:
Christine Stewart
Defendant:
Schlumberger Technology Corporation
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
Stewart v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
as 2:2016cv11998
Plaintiff:
Christine Stewart
Defendant:
Ethicon, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Jacques Potter v. Thomas Hart, et al
as 10-36043
Petitioner - Appellant:
JACQUES STEWART POTTER
Respondent - Appellee:
THOMAS M. HART, Honorable, Judge for the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the Third Judicial District (Marion County Circuit Court) and BLYTHE CHRISTINE STEWART
Potter v. Hart et al
as 3:2010cv00929
Respondent:
Honorable Thomas M. Hart and Blythe Christine Stewart
Petitioner:
Jacques Stewart Potter
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Potter v. Hart et al
as 1:2010cv00929
Respondent:
Honorable Thomas M. Hart and Blythe Christine Stewart
Petitioner:
Jacques Stewart Potter
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
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.
