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

Harris v. Kreutzer

No. 050715Supreme Court of Virginia

050715 Harris v. Kreutzer 01/13/2006 In a case against a clinical psychologist who had examined the plaintiff pursuant to Rule 4:10 in connection with a prior tort action, the trial court correctly sustained a…

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

050715 Harris v. Kreutzer 01/13/2006 In a case against a clinical psychologist who had examined the plaintiff pursuant to Rule 4:…

At a glance
Court
Supreme Court of Virginia
First added here
October 4, 2026
Last entry
January 13, 2006
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

050715 Harris v. Kreutzer 01/13/2006 In a case against a clinical psychologist who had examined the plaintiff pursuant to Rule 4:10 in connection with a prior tort action, the trial court correctly sustained a demurrer to a count of the complaint alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress because the alleged conduct of the psychologist was not sufficiently outrageous and intolerable, nor was the alleged impact upon plaintiff severe enough, to state a cause of action. The trial court erred in sustaining a demurrer to a count charging medical malpractice by this health care professional in conducting the examination under Rule 4:10 to assess plaintiff's condition for litigation pur…

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