The caption
The parties exactly as the court lists them—not a claim about the merits.
State court of last resort · ST-VA-SC
Drinkard-Nuckols v. Andrews
No. 040585Supreme Court of Virginia
040585 Drinkard-Nuckols v. Andrews 01/14/2005 (Revised 01/20/2005) In a medical malpractice case, the trial court did not err in admitting evidence, over the plaintiff's objection, concerning what the defendan…
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.
040585 Drinkard-Nuckols v. Andrews 01/14/2005 (Revised 01/20/2005) In a medical malpractice case, the trial court did not err in …
- Court
- Supreme Court of Virginia
- First added here
- October 4, 2026
- Last entry
- January 14, 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
040585 Drinkard-Nuckols v. Andrews 01/14/2005 (Revised 01/20/2005) In a medical malpractice case, the trial court did not err in admitting evidence, over the plaintiff's objection, concerning what the defendant doctors expected from other physicians regarding the interpretation of an x-ray, thereby suggesting that physicians other than the defendants were negligent, where plaintiff presented testimony of the same nature in her case-in-chief. Under these circumstances, plaintiff's objection was waived and Code § 8.01-384(A) does not require a different result. The judgment 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
040585 Drinkard-Nuckols v. Andrews 01/14/2005 (Revised 01/20/2005) In a medical malpractice case, the trial court did not err in admitting evidence, over the plaintiff's objection, concerning what the defendant doctors expected from other physicians regarding the interpretation of an x-ray, thereby suggesting that physicians other than the defendants were negligent, where plaintiff presented testimony of the same nature in her case-in-chief. Under these circumstances, plaintiff's objection was waived and Code § 8.01-384(A) does not require a different result. The judgment 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