The parties exactly as the court lists them—not a claim about the merits.
Amstutz v. Everett Jones Lumber Corp.
040134 Amstutz v. Everett Jones Lumber Corp. 11/05/2004 In two collected suits involving asserted prescriptive easement rights over a roadway on private land, there was not credible evidence to support the cir…
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.
040134 Amstutz v. Everett Jones Lumber Corp. 11/05/2004 In two collected suits involving asserted prescriptive easement rights ov…
- Court
- Supreme Court of Virginia
- First added here
- October 4, 2026
- Last entry
- November 5, 2004
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.
040134 Amstutz v. Everett Jones Lumber Corp. 11/05/2004 In two collected suits involving asserted prescriptive easement rights over a roadway on private land, there was not credible evidence to support the circuit court finding that a lumber company and an adjoining landowner had established such an easement under the clear and convincing evidence standard. Use of the roadway was not of sufficient continuity to give notice to the owners of the putative servient tenement that an easement was being exercised for agricultural, forestry, timbering or logging purposes. The judgment of the circuit court granting the prescriptive easement is reversed.
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
ReversedGranted
The court's record, as written
040134 Amstutz v. Everett Jones Lumber Corp. 11/05/2004 In two collected suits involving asserted prescriptive easement rights over a roadway on private land, there was not credible evidence to support the circuit court finding that a lumber company and an adjoining landowner had established such an easement under the clear and convincing evidence standard. Use of the roadway was not of sufficient continuity to give notice to the owners of the putative servient tenement that an easement was being exercised for agricultural, forestry, timbering or logging purposes. The judgment of the circuit court granting the prescriptive easement is reversed.
Outcome words in this text: granting, reversed.
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
