The caption
The parties exactly as the court lists them—not a claim about the merits.
State court of last resort · ST-VA-SC
King George County Service Authority v. Presidential Service Company
No. 030592Supreme Court of Virginia
030592 King George County Service Authority v. Presidential Service Company 03/05/2004 The circuit court was correct in specifically enforcing an agreement for the purchase of a private water company's existin…
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.
030592 King George County Service Authority v. Presidential Service Company 03/05/2004 The circuit court was correct in specifica…
- Court
- Supreme Court of Virginia
- First added here
- October 4, 2026
- Last entry
- March 5, 2004
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
030592 King George County Service Authority v. Presidential Service Company 03/05/2004 The circuit court was correct in specifically enforcing an agreement for the purchase of a private water company's existing water system by a county service authority under an agreement ratified by the authority's board, but erred in directing the authority to purchase other water and sewer system facilities because there was no resolution of the authority's board authorizing or ratifying a further agreement. The decree is affirmed in part and reversed in part.
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
ReversedAffirmed
The court's record, as written
030592 King George County Service Authority v. Presidential Service Company 03/05/2004 The circuit court was correct in specifically enforcing an agreement for the purchase of a private water company's existing water system by a county service authority under an agreement ratified by the authority's board, but erred in directing the authority to purchase other water and sewer system facilities because there was no resolution of the authority's board authorizing or ratifying a further agreement. The decree is affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Outcome words in this text: affirmed, 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
Documents and links