The caption
The parties exactly as the court lists them—not a claim about the merits.
State court of last resort · ST-VA-SC
Commonwealth v. Wilks
No. 991997Supreme Court of Virginia
991997 Commonwealth v. Wilks 06/09/2000 The trial court erred in concluding that failure of the Commonwealth to file a notice of seizure for forfeiture within 21 days as to certain property seized pursuant to …
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.
991997 Commonwealth v. Wilks 06/09/2000 The trial court erred in concluding that failure of the Commonwealth to file a notice of …
- 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
991997 Commonwealth v. Wilks 06/09/2000 The trial court erred in concluding that failure of the Commonwealth to file a notice of seizure for forfeiture within 21 days as to certain property seized pursuant to a search warrant, as required in the Code, was a jurisdictional defect. Since the filing requirement is directory and procedural rather than mandatory and jurisdictional, the trial court erred in dismissing several related forfeiture proceedings. That ruling is reversed and the proceedings are remanded.
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
ReversedRemandedDismissed
The court's record, as written
991997 Commonwealth v. Wilks 06/09/2000 The trial court erred in concluding that failure of the Commonwealth to file a notice of seizure for forfeiture within 21 days as to certain property seized pursuant to a search warrant, as required in the Code, was a jurisdictional defect. Since the filing requirement is directory and procedural rather than mandatory and jurisdictional, the trial court erred in dismissing several related forfeiture proceedings. That ruling is reversed and the proceedings are remanded.
Outcome words in this text: dismissing, 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