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

Britt v. Commonwealth

No. 072175Supreme Court of Virginia

072175 Britt v. Commonwealth 10/31/2008 In a prosecution for grand larceny, the evidence was insufficient to establish that the value of the goods taken was at least $200 where the owner of a burglarized store…

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

072175 Britt v. Commonwealth 10/31/2008 In a prosecution for grand larceny, the evidence was insufficient to establish that the v…

At a glance
Court
Supreme Court of Virginia
First added here
October 4, 2026
Last entry
October 31, 2008
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

072175 Britt v. Commonwealth 10/31/2008 In a prosecution for grand larceny, the evidence was insufficient to establish that the value of the goods taken was at least $200 where the owner of a burglarized store presented a tabulation at trial of the total value of the items recovered outside the store along with items found on the floor of the store itself. Since there was no evidence showing the quantity or value of those items retrieved from the floor, the total amount of $410.59 was not competent evidence of the value of the items removed from the store, and thus the Commonwealth failed to prove that the value of the items taken was $200 or more. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is re…

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