The caption
The parties exactly as the court lists them—not a claim about the merits.
State court of last resort · ST-VA-SC
Balbir Brar Inc. v. Consolidated Trading
No. 960014Supreme Court of Virginia
960014 Balbir Brar Inc. v. Consolidated Trading 11/01/1996 Since an examination of separate federal and state proceedings reveals that there is no underlying thread of evidentiary similarity between the litiga…
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.
960014 Balbir Brar Inc. v. Consolidated Trading 11/01/1996 Since an examination of separate federal and state proceedings reveals…
- Court
- Supreme Court of Virginia
- First added here
- October 4, 2026
- Last entry
- November 1, 1996
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
960014 Balbir Brar Inc. v. Consolidated Trading 11/01/1996 Since an examination of separate federal and state proceedings reveals that there is no underlying thread of evidentiary similarity between the litigants' federal and state claims, the trial court erred in ruling that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 13(a) bars a litigant who failed to assert a counterclaim in the federal proceeding from pursuing its claims in the state proceeding. The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the case 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
ReversedRemanded
The court's record, as written
960014 Balbir Brar Inc. v. Consolidated Trading 11/01/1996 Since an examination of separate federal and state proceedings reveals that there is no underlying thread of evidentiary similarity between the litigants' federal and state claims, the trial court erred in ruling that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 13(a) bars a litigant who failed to assert a counterclaim in the federal proceeding from pursuing its claims in the state proceeding. The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.
Outcome words in this text: 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