Cases 1 - 10 of 10
Stewart et al v. Walmart Inc. et al
as 1:2018cv01175
Plaintiff:
Melinda J. Stewart and James E. Stewart, Jr.
Defendant:
Walmart Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores East, LP.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2017cv00035
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
BENTLEY v. STEWART et al
as 3:2013cv00107
Plaintiff:
ANTHONY JEROME BENTLEY
Defendant:
James "Dee" Stewart and SPALDING COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT CENTER
BENTLEY v. STEWART et al
as 5:2013cv00231
Plaintiff:
ANTHONY JEROME BENTLEY
Defendant:
JAMES DEE STEWART and SPALDING COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT CENTER
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Hamm v. Spalding County, Georgia et al
as 3:2010cv00192
Plaintiff:
Kenneth Hamm
Defendant:
Spalding County, Georgia , James Dee Stewart , Robert Hall and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Tasman et al v. Brican America, Inc. et al
as 1:2010cv01807
Plaintiff:
Stuart Tasman , Paul W. Broome , Mark Gottlieb and others
Defendant:
Brican America, Inc., Brican America, LLC, Brican Financial Services, LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961
Lamar v. Stewart
as 1:2008cv01289
Petitioner:
Dewayne Lamar
Respondent:
James D. Stewart
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Lamar v. Stewart et al
as 3:2008cv00011
Plaintiff:
Dewayne Lamar
Defendant:
James D. Stewart, Toni Raniereri and Scott Ballard
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Lamar v. Stewart et al
as 3:2007mi00005
Plaintiff:
Dewayne Lamar
Defendant:
James D. Stewart, Toni Raniereri and Scott Ballard
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Lamar v. Stewart et al
as 1:2007cv01503
Plaintiff:
Dewayne Emmanuel Lamar
Defendant:
James D. Stewart and Toni Raniereri
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
