The caption
The parties exactly as the court lists them—not a claim about the merits.
State court of last resort · ST-VA-SC
Waterfront Marine Constr. v. North End 49ers
No. 951218Supreme Court of Virginia
951218 Waterfront Marine Constr. v. North End 49ers 04/19/1996 Since a construction contract between the parties did not specifically provide that questions of arbitrability and res judicata be submitted to ar…
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.
951218 Waterfront Marine Constr. v. North End 49ers 04/19/1996 Since a construction contract between the parties did not specific…
- Court
- Supreme Court of Virginia
- First added here
- October 4, 2026
- Last entry
- April 19, 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
951218 Waterfront Marine Constr. v. North End 49ers 04/19/1996 Since a construction contract between the parties did not specifically provide that questions of arbitrability and res judicata be submitted to arbitration, the trial court erred in failing to resolve those issues and in referring them to an arbitration panel. The claims in a second demand for arbitration relating to noncompliance with the first arbitration award were not arbitrable, and the claim for breach of warranty is barred by res judicata. The judgment of the trial court confirming the second arbitration award is reversed.
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
Reversed
The court's record, as written
951218 Waterfront Marine Constr. v. North End 49ers 04/19/1996 Since a construction contract between the parties did not specifically provide that questions of arbitrability and res judicata be submitted to arbitration, the trial court erred in failing to resolve those issues and in referring them to an arbitration panel. The claims in a second demand for arbitration relating to noncompliance with the first arbitration award were not arbitrable, and the claim for breach of warranty is barred by res judicata. The judgment of the trial court confirming the second arbitration award is reversed.
Outcome words in this text: reversed.
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