The parties exactly as the court lists them—not a claim about the merits.
Williams v. Le
071409 Williams v. Le 06/06/2008 In a wrongful death action arising from alleged medical malpractice, the trial court erred in instructing the jury on superseding intervening causation. This doctrine does not …
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.
071409 Williams v. Le 06/06/2008 In a wrongful death action arising from alleged medical malpractice, the trial court erred in in…
- Court
- Supreme Court of Virginia
- First added here
- October 4, 2026
- Last entry
- June 6, 2008
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.
071409 Williams v. Le 06/06/2008 In a wrongful death action arising from alleged medical malpractice, the trial court erred in instructing the jury on superseding intervening causation. This doctrine does not operate to exempt a defendant from liability if the purportedly intervening cause is put into operation by the defendant's wrongful act or omission. In this case it could not be said that defendant's alleged negligence did not contribute "in the slightest degree" to the death of plaintiff's decedent. The trial court therefore erred in granting the superseding intervening causation instruction. The judgment is reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.
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
ReversedRemandedGranted
The court's record, as written
071409 Williams v. Le 06/06/2008 In a wrongful death action arising from alleged medical malpractice, the trial court erred in instructing the jury on superseding intervening causation. This doctrine does not operate to exempt a defendant from liability if the purportedly intervening cause is put into operation by the defendant's wrongful act or omission. In this case it could not be said that defendant's alleged negligence did not contribute "in the slightest degree" to the death of plaintiff's decedent. The trial court therefore erred in granting the superseding intervening causation instruction. The judgment is reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.
Outcome words in this text: granting, 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
