The caption
The parties exactly as the court lists them—not a claim about the merits.
State court of last resort · ST-VA-SC
Ward v. Insurance Company of North America
No. 961338Supreme Court of Virginia
961338 Ward v. Insurance Company of North America 02/28/1997 Since the courts in the Commonwealth must use calendar years and not 365-day periods when computing whether a statute of limitations has expired, an…
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.
961338 Ward v. Insurance Company of North America 02/28/1997 Since the courts in the Commonwealth must use calendar years and not…
- Court
- Supreme Court of Virginia
- First added here
- October 4, 2026
- Last entry
- February 28, 1997
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
961338 Ward v. Insurance Company of North America 02/28/1997 Since the courts in the Commonwealth must use calendar years and not 365-day periods when computing whether a statute of limitations has expired, and since the plaintiff filed her motion for judgment within five calendar years from the date her cause of action against the defendants accrued, she was entitled to both the tolling provision applicable to nonsuits and the statutory time extension contained in Code § 1-13.3:1. The trial court judgment dismissing the suit is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
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
961338 Ward v. Insurance Company of North America 02/28/1997 Since the courts in the Commonwealth must use calendar years and not 365-day periods when computing whether a statute of limitations has expired, and since the plaintiff filed her motion for judgment within five calendar years from the date her cause of action against the defendants accrued, she was entitled to both the tolling provision applicable to nonsuits and the statutory time extension contained in Code § 1-13.3:1. The trial court judgment dismissing the suit is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
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