Skip to page content
Power & PoliticsUnited States edition
Sections
Only your five-digit ZIP code is sent. We never ask for your address.
Independent · nonpartisan
Illustrative anonymous person approaching a public clerk intake window
State court of last resort · ST-VA-SC

King v. Sowers

No. 951688Supreme Court of Virginia

951688 King v. Sowers 06/07/1996 In a medical malpractice action, the trial court did not err in instructing the jury regarding acceptable and customary methods of treatment, nor did it err in permitting certa…

The clerk's words are shown exactly as filed.
01
The caption

The parties exactly as the court lists them—not a claim about the merits.

02
The activity

Orders, motions, and filings in the clerk's own words and sequence.

03
The source

The official docket and available court documents attached to every update.

Current update

951688 King v. Sowers 06/07/1996 In a medical malpractice action, the trial court did not err in instructing the jury regarding a…

At a glance
Court
Supreme Court of Virginia
First added here
October 4, 2026
Last entry
June 7, 1996
Policy at issue

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

951688 King v. Sowers 06/07/1996 In a medical malpractice action, the trial court did not err in instructing the jury regarding acceptable and customary methods of treatment, nor did it err in permitting certain testimony by an ophthalmic pathologist, including his evaluation of computerized axial tomography, and the trial court's 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.

  1. · Supreme Court of Virginia

    Affirmed

    The court's record, as written

    951688 King v. Sowers 06/07/1996 In a medical malpractice action, the trial court did not err in instructing the jury regarding acceptable and customary methods of treatment, nor did it err in permitting certain testimony by an ophthalmic pathologist, including his evaluation of computerized axial tomography, and the trial court's 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