The caption
The parties exactly as the court lists them—not a claim about the merits.
State court of last resort · ST-VA-SC
Frouz v. Commonwealth
No. 171450Supreme Court of Virginia
171450 Frouz v. Commonwealth 12/06/2018 In a proceeding initiated by summons issued pursuant to Code § 3.2-6540, under which the defendant was ordered to respond to an allegation that she was the owner of a "d…
The clerk's words are shown exactly as filed.The activity
Orders, motions, and filings in the clerk's own words and sequence.
The source
The official docket and available court documents attached to every update.
171450 Frouz v. Commonwealth 12/06/2018 In a proceeding initiated by summons issued pursuant to Code § 3.2-6540, under which the …
- Court
- Supreme Court of Virginia
- First added here
- October 4, 2026
- Last entry
- December 6, 2018
No bill or executive-order citation is attached to this file.
Official docket
Case timeline
The clerk's wording is shown verbatim and linked to the court's own document page where available.
Docket entry
171450 Frouz v. Commonwealth 12/06/2018 In a proceeding initiated by summons issued pursuant to Code § 3.2-6540, under which the defendant was ordered to respond to an allegation that she was the owner of a "dangerous dog," the circuit court did not err in finding, after a bench trial, that the dog in question was a "dangerous dog" within the meaning of Code § 3.2-6540(A)(1), that the defendant -- while not the owner of that dog -- was the custodian or harborer of the dog, and that defendant should be ordered to pay restitution of $3,896 for the injuries to another dog that belongs to defendant's neighbor. The judgment is affirmed.
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
Affirmed
The court's record, as written
171450 Frouz v. Commonwealth 12/06/2018 In a proceeding initiated by summons issued pursuant to Code § 3.2-6540, under which the defendant was ordered to respond to an allegation that she was the owner of a "dangerous dog," the circuit court did not err in finding, after a bench trial, that the dog in question was a "dangerous dog" within the meaning of Code § 3.2-6540(A)(1), that the defendant -- while not the owner of that dog -- was the custodian or harborer of the dog, and that defendant should be ordered to pay restitution of $3,896 for the injuries to another dog that belongs to defendant's neighbor. The judgment is affirmed.
Outcome words in this text: affirmed.
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
Documents and links