The caption
The parties exactly as the court lists them—not a claim about the merits.
State court of last resort · ST-VA-SC
City of Virginia Beach v. Giant Square Shopping Ct
No. 971746Supreme Court of Virginia
971746 City of Virginia Beach v. Giant Square Shopping Ct 04/17/1998 In this eminent domain case the trial court abused its discretion and committed reversible error in refusing to strike for cause a prospecti…
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.
971746 City of Virginia Beach v. Giant Square Shopping Ct 04/17/1998 In this eminent domain case the trial court abused its discr…
- Court
- Supreme Court of Virginia
- First added here
- October 4, 2026
- Last entry
- April 17, 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
971746 City of Virginia Beach v. Giant Square Shopping Ct 04/17/1998 In this eminent domain case the trial court abused its discretion and committed reversible error in refusing to strike for cause a prospective commissioner who was a client of the attorney for the landowners. However, the trial court did not err in refusing a proposed instruction on a subject already adequately covered in granted instructions. The case is affirmed in part, reversed in part and 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
ReversedAffirmedRemandedGranted
The court's record, as written
971746 City of Virginia Beach v. Giant Square Shopping Ct 04/17/1998 In this eminent domain case the trial court abused its discretion and committed reversible error in refusing to strike for cause a prospective commissioner who was a client of the attorney for the landowners. However, the trial court did not err in refusing a proposed instruction on a subject already adequately covered in granted instructions. The case is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.
Outcome words in this text: granted, affirmed, 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