The caption
The parties exactly as the court lists them—not a claim about the merits.
State court of last resort · ST-VA-SC
Velocity Express v. Hugen
No. 022877Supreme Court of Virginia
022877 Velocity Express v. Hugen 09/12/2003 In a personal injury case, the plaintiff's closing argument to the jury was prejudicial and constituted reversible error. Plaintiff established liability and the imp…
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.
022877 Velocity Express v. Hugen 09/12/2003 In a personal injury case, the plaintiff's closing argument to the jury was prejudici…
- Court
- Supreme Court of Virginia
- First added here
- October 4, 2026
- Last entry
- September 12, 2003
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
022877 Velocity Express v. Hugen 09/12/2003 In a personal injury case, the plaintiff's closing argument to the jury was prejudicial and constituted reversible error. Plaintiff established liability and the improper jury argument could not have affected the finding of negligence. The judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the action is remanded for a new trial solely on the issue of damages.
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
ReversedAffirmedRemanded
The court's record, as written
022877 Velocity Express v. Hugen 09/12/2003 In a personal injury case, the plaintiff's closing argument to the jury was prejudicial and constituted reversible error. Plaintiff established liability and the improper jury argument could not have affected the finding of negligence. The judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the action is remanded for a new trial solely on the issue of damages.
Outcome words in this text: 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
Documents and links