Cases 1 - 7 of 7
KAUFMAN v. RIVER EDGE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CENTER et al
as 5:2023cv00011
Plaintiff:
HEATHER KAUFMAN
Defendant:
RIVER EDGE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CENTER and RIVER EDGE FOUNDATION
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Advantage Behavioral Health Systems et al v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. et al
as 1:2020op45249
Defendant:
Allergan PLC, Allergan Finance LLC, Par Pharmaceutical Companies Inc. and others
Plaintiff:
Satilla Community Services doing business as Unison Behavioral Health, Georgia Mountains Community Services doing business as Avita Community Partners, Advantage Behavioral Health Systems and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1964
Advantage Behavioral Health Systems et al v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. et al
as 1:2020cv03442
Defendant:
Allergan PLC, Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc., Allergan Finance, LLC and others
Plaintiff:
Satilla Community Services doing business as Unison Behavioral Health, Georgia Mountains Community Services doing business as Avita Community Partners, Advantage Behavioral Health Systems and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1964
GRAY v. DEAL et al
as 5:2015cv00200
Plaintiff:
NAPOLEON GRAY
Defendant:
NATHAN DEAL, GEORGIA VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION, STATE OF GEORGIA and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Gabe Culler v. Bibb County Superior Court, et al
as 12-12057
Petitioner - Appellant:
GABE LOCKETT CULLER
Respondent - Appellee:
BIBB COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, RIVER EDGE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CENTER and ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF GEORGIA
CULLER v. BIBB COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT et al
as 5:2012cv00058
Plaintiff:
GABE LOCKETT CULLER
Defendant:
BIBB COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, RIVER EDGE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CENTER and GEORGIA ATTORNEY GENERAL
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2007cv00407
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 Job Discrimination (Race)
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.
