The caption
The parties exactly as the court lists them—not a claim about the merits.
State court of last resort · ST-VA-SC
Mark Five Construction v. Castle Contractors
No. 061304Supreme Court of Virginia
061304 Mark Five Construction v. Castle Contractors 06/08/2007 In an indemnity action for the benefit of a contractor's insurer against an "intermediate contractor" arising from payments made to an injured wor…
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.
061304 Mark Five Construction v. Castle Contractors 06/08/2007 In an indemnity action for the benefit of a contractor's insurer a…
- Court
- Supreme Court of Virginia
- First added here
- October 4, 2026
- Last entry
- June 8, 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
061304 Mark Five Construction v. Castle Contractors 06/08/2007 In an indemnity action for the benefit of a contractor's insurer against an "intermediate contractor" arising from payments made to an injured worker, the circuit court did not err in sustaining the defendants' demurrer because a party can only seek indemnification under Code § 65.2-304 from persons who would have been liable to pay compensation under the Act and thus are subject to jurisdiction under the Act. Plaintiff did not allege that the defendant contracting company was such a person and, as a matter of law, cannot make that showing. The judgment of the circuit 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
061304 Mark Five Construction v. Castle Contractors 06/08/2007 In an indemnity action for the benefit of a contractor's insurer against an "intermediate contractor" arising from payments made to an injured worker, the circuit court did not err in sustaining the defendants' demurrer because a party can only seek indemnification under Code § 65.2-304 from persons who would have been liable to pay compensation under the Act and thus are subject to jurisdiction under the Act. Plaintiff did not allege that the defendant contracting company was such a person and, as a matter of law, cannot make that showing. The judgment of the circuit 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