The caption
The parties exactly as the court lists them—not a claim about the merits.
State court of last resort · ST-VA-SC
Harrell v. City of Norfolk
No. 021419Supreme Court of Virginia
021419 Harrell v. City of Norfolk 04/17/2003 The trial court did not err in granting a city's special plea in bar and dismissing a motion for judgment for personal injuries on the ground that the alleged negli…
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.
021419 Harrell v. City of Norfolk 04/17/2003 The trial court did not err in granting a city's special plea in bar and dismissing …
- 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
021419 Harrell v. City of Norfolk 04/17/2003 The trial court did not err in granting a city's special plea in bar and dismissing a motion for judgment for personal injuries on the ground that the alleged negligence concerned maintenance of a crosswalk that was a traffic regulatory device which involves a discretionary governmental function, invoking the locality's governmental immunity from suit. 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
AffirmedDismissedGranted
The court's record, as written
021419 Harrell v. City of Norfolk 04/17/2003 The trial court did not err in granting a city's special plea in bar and dismissing a motion for judgment for personal injuries on the ground that the alleged negligence concerned maintenance of a crosswalk that was a traffic regulatory device which involves a discretionary governmental function, invoking the locality's governmental immunity from suit. The judgment is affirmed.
Outcome words in this text: granting, dismissing, 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