The caption
The parties exactly as the court lists them—not a claim about the merits.
State court of last resort · ST-VA-SC
Feddeman & Company v. Langan Associates P.C.
No. 991996Supreme Court of Virginia
991996 Feddeman & Company v. Langan Associates P.C. 06/09/2000 In a case in which an aborted corporate buy-out or merger was followed by mass resignation of plaintiff's employees, the evidence was sufficient t…
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.
991996 Feddeman & Company v. Langan Associates P.C. 06/09/2000 In a case in which an aborted corporate buy-out or merger was foll…
- Court
- Supreme Court of Virginia
- First added here
- October 4, 2026
- Last entry
- June 9, 2000
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
991996 Feddeman & Company v. Langan Associates P.C. 06/09/2000 In a case in which an aborted corporate buy-out or merger was followed by mass resignation of plaintiff's employees, the evidence was sufficient to support a jury determination that defendants knew and intended that their resignation plan would injure plaintiff. The trial court erred in setting the verdict aside, and that judgment is reversed. Because the trial court did not consider an award in accordance with § 18.2-500, the case is remanded for entry of a judgment consistent with this opinion.
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
ReversedRemanded
The court's record, as written
991996 Feddeman & Company v. Langan Associates P.C. 06/09/2000 In a case in which an aborted corporate buy-out or merger was followed by mass resignation of plaintiff's employees, the evidence was sufficient to support a jury determination that defendants knew and intended that their resignation plan would injure plaintiff. The trial court erred in setting the verdict aside, and that judgment is reversed. Because the trial court did not consider an award in accordance with § 18.2-500, the case is remanded for entry of a judgment consistent with this opinion.
Outcome words in this text: 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