The caption
The parties exactly as the court lists them—not a claim about the merits.
State court of last resort · ST-VA-SC
Thomas v. Garraghty
No. 991284Supreme Court of Virginia
991284 Thomas v. Garraghty 11/05/1999 The minor defendant's aunt and uncle, as persons "standing in loco parentis," were served with a juvenile transfer hearing which, along with the notice provided to the def…
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.
991284 Thomas v. Garraghty 11/05/1999 The minor defendant's aunt and uncle, as persons "standing in loco parentis," were served w…
- Court
- Supreme Court of Virginia
- First added here
- October 4, 2026
- Last entry
- November 5, 1999
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
991284 Thomas v. Garraghty 11/05/1999 The minor defendant's aunt and uncle, as persons "standing in loco parentis," were served with a juvenile transfer hearing which, along with the notice provided to the defendant, fully complied with former Code § 16.1-263 because the defendant had no parents, guardian, or legal custodian. The Commonwealth's failure to provide notice to biological parents did not create a jurisdictional defect rendering his convictions void. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied.
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
Denied
The court's record, as written
991284 Thomas v. Garraghty 11/05/1999 The minor defendant's aunt and uncle, as persons "standing in loco parentis," were served with a juvenile transfer hearing which, along with the notice provided to the defendant, fully complied with former Code § 16.1-263 because the defendant had no parents, guardian, or legal custodian. The Commonwealth's failure to provide notice to biological parents did not create a jurisdictional defect rendering his convictions void. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied.
Outcome words in this text: denied.
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