The caption
The parties exactly as the court lists them—not a claim about the merits.
State court of last resort · ST-VA-SC
Allstate Insurance Co. v. Wade
No. 021201Supreme Court of Virginia
021201 Allstate Insurance Co. v. Wade 04/17/2003 The trial court did not err in refusing to allow plaintiff's uninsured motorist insurance carrier to inform the jury that a punitive damage award would not serv…
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.
021201 Allstate Insurance Co. v. Wade 04/17/2003 The trial court did not err in refusing to allow plaintiff's uninsured motorist …
- Court
- Supreme Court of Virginia
- First added here
- October 4, 2026
- Last entry
- April 17, 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
021201 Allstate Insurance Co. v. Wade 04/17/2003 The trial court did not err in refusing to allow plaintiff's uninsured motorist insurance carrier to inform the jury that a punitive damage award would not serve deterrent purposes because the insurer would be the source of payment, nor was it an abuse of discretion to refuse to bifurcate the jury's consideration of punitive and compensatory damages. The compensatory damage awards were not excessive, and the evidence supported the award of punitive damages against one defendant. 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
021201 Allstate Insurance Co. v. Wade 04/17/2003 The trial court did not err in refusing to allow plaintiff's uninsured motorist insurance carrier to inform the jury that a punitive damage award would not serve deterrent purposes because the insurer would be the source of payment, nor was it an abuse of discretion to refuse to bifurcate the jury's consideration of punitive and compensatory damages. The compensatory damage awards were not excessive, and the evidence supported the award of punitive damages against one defendant. 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