The parties exactly as the court lists them—not a claim about the merits.
Bland v. Virginia State University
051882 Bland v. Virginia State University 06/08/2006 In Virginia Freedom of Information Act litigation concerning whether an agency properly redacted personnel information appearing in certain reports, the tri…
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.
051882 Bland v. Virginia State University 06/08/2006 In Virginia Freedom of Information Act litigation concerning whether an agen…
- Court
- Supreme Court of Virginia
- First added here
- October 4, 2026
- Last entry
- June 8, 2006
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.
051882 Bland v. Virginia State University 06/08/2006 In Virginia Freedom of Information Act litigation concerning whether an agency properly redacted personnel information appearing in certain reports, the trial court erred in failing to grant a former employee's motion to require production of unredacted versions of the reports and make them part of the record under seal. Exclusion of evidence considered by a trial court in reaching its decision, when properly tendered for the record, impedes appellate review and constitutes an abuse of discretion. The trial court's judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
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
ReversedRemanded
The court's record, as written
051882 Bland v. Virginia State University 06/08/2006 In Virginia Freedom of Information Act litigation concerning whether an agency properly redacted personnel information appearing in certain reports, the trial court erred in failing to grant a former employee's motion to require production of unredacted versions of the reports and make them part of the record under seal. Exclusion of evidence considered by a trial court in reaching its decision, when properly tendered for the record, impedes appellate review and constitutes an abuse of discretion. The trial court's judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
Outcome words in this text: 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
