The parties exactly as the court lists them—not a claim about the merits.
Blake Constr. v. Upper Occoquan Sewage Auth.
022075 Blake Constr. v. Upper Occoquan Sewage Auth. 10/31/2003 In litigation arising from a construction contract with a public body, the trial court erred in sustaining the public body's demurrer to the plain…
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.
022075 Blake Constr. v. Upper Occoquan Sewage Auth. 10/31/2003 In litigation arising from a construction contract with a public b…
- Court
- Supreme Court of Virginia
- First added here
- October 4, 2026
- Last entry
- October 31, 2003
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.
022075 Blake Constr. v. Upper Occoquan Sewage Auth. 10/31/2003 In litigation arising from a construction contract with a public body, the trial court erred in sustaining the public body's demurrer to the plaintiff's claim that certain provisions of the contract were unenforceable and void as against public policy under Code § 2.2-4335(A). The trial court correctly dismissed plaintiff's claim for damages under a particular work order for failure to give a timely notice of claim. The judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded. (Revised 11/13/03)
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
ReversedAffirmedRemandedDismissed
The court's record, as written
022075 Blake Constr. v. Upper Occoquan Sewage Auth. 10/31/2003 In litigation arising from a construction contract with a public body, the trial court erred in sustaining the public body's demurrer to the plaintiff's claim that certain provisions of the contract were unenforceable and void as against public policy under Code § 2.2-4335(A). The trial court correctly dismissed plaintiff's claim for damages under a particular work order for failure to give a timely notice of claim. The judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded. (Revised 11/13/03)
Outcome words in this text: dismissed, affirmed, reversed, remanded.
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
