The caption
The parties exactly as the court lists them—not a claim about the merits.
State court of last resort · ST-VA-SC
In re: Gordon E. Hannett
No. 050985Supreme Court of Virginia
050985 In re: Gordon E. Hannett 09/16/2005 (Revised 09/19/2005) In a dispute concerning appointment of an acting Commonwealth's Attorney under Code § 19.2-156, the circuit court had jurisdiction to consider th…
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.
050985 In re: Gordon E. Hannett 09/16/2005 (Revised 09/19/2005) In a dispute concerning appointment of an acting Commonwealth's A…
- Court
- Supreme Court of Virginia
- First added here
- October 4, 2026
- Last entry
- September 16, 2005
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
050985 In re: Gordon E. Hannett 09/16/2005 (Revised 09/19/2005) In a dispute concerning appointment of an acting Commonwealth's Attorney under Code § 19.2-156, the circuit court had jurisdiction to consider the necessity of such an appointment and to make it, where an elected Commonwealth Attorney's active military service would require him to be absent for an extended period. While mandamus was the proper means for him to seek relief, and prohibition did not lie because he was not being forced to forfeit or vacate his office, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in acting under the statute. The petitions for writs of prohibition and mandamus are dismissed.
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
Dismissed
The court's record, as written
050985 In re: Gordon E. Hannett 09/16/2005 (Revised 09/19/2005) In a dispute concerning appointment of an acting Commonwealth's Attorney under Code § 19.2-156, the circuit court had jurisdiction to consider the necessity of such an appointment and to make it, where an elected Commonwealth Attorney's active military service would require him to be absent for an extended period. While mandamus was the proper means for him to seek relief, and prohibition did not lie because he was not being forced to forfeit or vacate his office, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in acting under the statute. The petitions for writs of prohibition and mandamus are dismissed.
Outcome words in this text: dismissed.
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