The caption
The parties exactly as the court lists them—not a claim about the merits.
State court of last resort · ST-VA-SC
Mountain View Ptnrshp v. City of Clifton Forge
No. 972275Supreme Court of Virginia
972275 Mountain View Ptnrshp v. City of Clifton Forge 09/18/1998 A former city ordinance setting rates for refuse collection imposed a valid fee. Since the evidence supports the trial court's finding that reas…
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.
972275 Mountain View Ptnrshp v. City of Clifton Forge 09/18/1998 A former city ordinance setting rates for refuse collection impo…
- Court
- Supreme Court of Virginia
- First added here
- October 4, 2026
- Last entry
- September 18, 1998
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
972275 Mountain View Ptnrshp v. City of Clifton Forge 09/18/1998 A former city ordinance setting rates for refuse collection imposed a valid fee. Since the evidence supports the trial court's finding that reasonableness of the classifications under the ordinance was fairly debatable, the trial court correctly found the ordinance valid. 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
972275 Mountain View Ptnrshp v. City of Clifton Forge 09/18/1998 A former city ordinance setting rates for refuse collection imposed a valid fee. Since the evidence supports the trial court's finding that reasonableness of the classifications under the ordinance was fairly debatable, the trial court correctly found the ordinance valid. 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