The parties exactly as the court lists them—not a claim about the merits.
Dill v. Kroger Limited Partnership I
200823 Dill v. Kroger Limited Partnership I 07/08/2021 In a malicious prosecution and false imprisonment case brought by a person who was mistakenly identified, charged, and prosecuted as a shoplifter, the cir…
The clerk's words are shown exactly as filed.Orders, motions, and filings in the clerk's own words and sequence.
The official docket and available court documents attached to every update.
200823 Dill v. Kroger Limited Partnership I 07/08/2021 In a malicious prosecution and false imprisonment case brought by a person…
- Court
- Supreme Court of Virginia
- First added here
- October 4, 2026
- Last entry
- July 8, 2021
No bill or executive-order citation is attached to this file.
Case timeline
The clerk's wording is shown verbatim and linked to the court's own document page where available.
200823 Dill v. Kroger Limited Partnership I 07/08/2021 In a malicious prosecution and false imprisonment case brought by a person who was mistakenly identified, charged, and prosecuted as a shoplifter, the circuit court erred in granting a joint motion to strike filed by the defendant retailer and its store manager as to the malicious prosecution claim, but it did not err in granting the motion as to the false imprisonment claim. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings.
Open court document ↗Rulings in this case over time
Courts at different levels and stages can reach different results in the same case. Each entry is the court's own record; read it before drawing a conclusion.
1 entry, oldest first.
· Supreme Court of Virginia
ReversedAffirmedRemandedGranted
The court's record, as written
200823 Dill v. Kroger Limited Partnership I 07/08/2021 In a malicious prosecution and false imprisonment case brought by a person who was mistakenly identified, charged, and prosecuted as a shoplifter, the circuit court erred in granting a joint motion to strike filed by the defendant retailer and its store manager as to the malicious prosecution claim, but it did not err in granting the motion as to the false imprisonment claim. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings.
Outcome words in this text: granting, affirmed, reversed, remanded.
Method: an entry is marked with an outcome only when its own text contains the outcome word, and the word is shown beside it. Orders, opinions and judgments whose text does not say are marked Other. Party filings, notices and routine procedural orders (appearances, extra pages, time extensions, scheduling) are not listed. No link between this case and any other case is recorded in our data, so only this case's own record is shown. Open the court's docket
