Skip to page content
Power & PoliticsUnited States edition
Sections
Only your five-digit ZIP code is sent. We never ask for your address.
Independent · nonpartisan
Illustrative anonymous person approaching a public clerk intake window
State court of last resort · ST-VA-SC

Ruby v. Cashnet, Inc.

No. 100287Supreme Court of Virginia

100287 Ruby v. Cashnet, Inc. 04/21/2011 (Revised 05/25/2011) Under former Code § 6.1-459(6)(i) of the Payday Loan Act, which is now codified at Code § 6.2-1816(6)(i), a payday lender is prohibited from refinan…

The clerk's words are shown exactly as filed.
01
The caption

The parties exactly as the court lists them—not a claim about the merits.

02
The activity

Orders, motions, and filings in the clerk's own words and sequence.

03
The source

The official docket and available court documents attached to every update.

Current update

100287 Ruby v. Cashnet, Inc. 04/21/2011 (Revised 05/25/2011) Under former Code § 6.1-459(6)(i) of the Payday Loan Act, which is n…

At a glance
Court
Supreme Court of Virginia
First added here
October 4, 2026
Last entry
April 21, 2011
Policy at issue

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

100287 Ruby v. Cashnet, Inc. 04/21/2011 (Revised 05/25/2011) Under former Code § 6.1-459(6)(i) of the Payday Loan Act, which is now codified at Code § 6.2-1816(6)(i), a payday lender is prohibited from refinancing, renewing or extending any payday loan, and a payday lender violates this provision when it makes a loan to a borrower immediately after the borrower repays in full a previous loan. Consequently, the circuit court erred in finding that a payday lender's practice of making a loan to a customer immediately after the customer repaid a previous loan was not a refinancing or renewal under Code § 6.2-1816(6)(i) and, therefore, not in violation of the Act. The circuit court's judgment in…

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.

No official record has been found at this time. We are watching for updates.

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; 1 such entry was left out of this case. 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