Cases 1 - 10 of 11
Mock v. Holloway
as 3:2024cv00724
Petitioner:
Brian Ray Mock
Respondent:
Warden James M. Holloway
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Reeves v. Tony Parker et al
as 3:2020cv00326
Defendant:
Dr. Gregory Mock, Morgan County Correctional Complex, Tony Parker and others
Plaintiff:
Octaivian D Reeves
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Reeves v. Morgan County Correctional Complex
as 3:2020mc00050
Defendant:
Morgan County Correctional Complex, Dr. Gregory Mock, Tony Parker and others
Plaintiff:
Octaivian D Reeves
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Hamby v. Parker et al
as 3:2019cv00101
Defendant:
f/n/u Shepard, Dr. f/n/u Mock and Tony Parker
Plaintiff:
William Hamby
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Hamby v. Parker et al
as 3:2019cv00077
Defendant:
Dr. f/n/u Mock, Tony Parker and f/n/u Shepard
Plaintiff:
William D. Hamby, Jr.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Mock, Inc. d/b/a Hi-Speed Industrial Service v. Betts Sr.
as 2:2019cv02058
Defendant:
Ronnie Betts Sr.
Plaintiff:
Mock, Inc. d/b/a Hi-Speed Industrial Service
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Hamby v. Parker et al
as 3:2017cv01480
Plaintiff:
William D. Hamby, Jr.
Defendant:
Tony Parker, Lynndy Houston-Fagan, f/n/u Mock and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Goudy et al v. Parker et al
as 3:2017cv01344
Plaintiff:
Israel Goudy and Daniel Nelson
Defendant:
Tony Parker, Shawn Phillips, Molly O'Toole and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Mock v. Harvest Management Sub TRS Corp. et al
as 1:2014cv00058
Plaintiff:
Judy Mock
Defendant:
Harvest Management Sub TRS Corp., Harvest Management Sub LLC and Harvest Creekside at Shallowford Retirement Residence LLC
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1938
Mock v. Viacom, Inc.
as 3:2013cv00457
Plaintiff:
Erin Mock
Defendant:
Viacom, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227 Restrictions on use of telephone equipment
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.
