The parties exactly as the court lists them—not a claim about the merits.
Dunn, McCormack & MacPherson v. Connolly
100260 Dunn, McCormack & MacPherson v. Connolly 04/21/2011 In a suit alleging intentional interference with contractual relations, the circuit court did not err when it sustained the individual defendant's dem…
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.
100260 Dunn, McCormack & MacPherson v. Connolly 04/21/2011 In a suit alleging intentional interference with contractual relations…
- Court
- Supreme Court of Virginia
- First added here
- October 4, 2026
- Last entry
- April 21, 2011
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.
100260 Dunn, McCormack & MacPherson v. Connolly 04/21/2011 In a suit alleging intentional interference with contractual relations, the circuit court did not err when it sustained the individual defendant's demurrer and held that the law firm plaintiff failed to state a prima facie cause of action for tortious interference with a contract. The amended complaint did not sufficiently allege "improper" interference with the firm's at will contract. The judgment dismissing the case 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
AffirmedDismissed
The court's record, as written
100260 Dunn, McCormack & MacPherson v. Connolly 04/21/2011 In a suit alleging intentional interference with contractual relations, the circuit court did not err when it sustained the individual defendant's demurrer and held that the law firm plaintiff failed to state a prima facie cause of action for tortious interference with a contract. The amended complaint did not sufficiently allege "improper" interference with the firm's at will contract. The judgment dismissing the case is affirmed.
Outcome words in this text: dismissing, 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
