The caption
The parties exactly as the court lists them—not a claim about the merits.
State court of last resort · ST-VA-SC
John Crane, Inc. v. Jones
No. 062164Supreme Court of Virginia
062164 John Crane, Inc. v. Jones 09/14/2007 (Revised 02/08/2008) In a products liability personal injury action involving exposure to asbestos, there was no error in the trial court's application of general ma…
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.
062164 John Crane, Inc. v. Jones 09/14/2007 (Revised 02/08/2008) In a products liability personal injury action involving exposur…
- Court
- Supreme Court of Virginia
- First added here
- October 4, 2026
- Last entry
- September 14, 2007
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
062164 John Crane, Inc. v. Jones 09/14/2007 (Revised 02/08/2008) In a products liability personal injury action involving exposure to asbestos, there was no error in the trial court's application of general maritime law rather than Virginia law, in its evidentiary rulings regarding the testimony of a defendant's employee and two of the defense expert witnesses, or in its refusal to set aside the jury verdict as excessive. The judgment of the trial court 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
062164 John Crane, Inc. v. Jones 09/14/2007 (Revised 02/08/2008) In a products liability personal injury action involving exposure to asbestos, there was no error in the trial court's application of general maritime law rather than Virginia law, in its evidentiary rulings regarding the testimony of a defendant's employee and two of the defense expert witnesses, or in its refusal to set aside the jury verdict as excessive. The judgment of the trial court 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