The caption
The parties exactly as the court lists them—not a claim about the merits.
State court of last resort · ST-VA-SC
Carr v. The Home Insurance Company
No. 950005Supreme Court of Virginia
950005 Carr v. The Home Insurance Company 11/03/1995 Since the only cognizable claim available to the plaintiff insurer was one in subrogation as provided in Code § 38.2-2206(G) and the insurer did not bring i…
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.
950005 Carr v. The Home Insurance Company 11/03/1995 Since the only cognizable claim available to the plaintiff insurer was one i…
- Court
- Supreme Court of Virginia
- First added here
- October 4, 2026
- Last entry
- November 3, 1995
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
950005 Carr v. The Home Insurance Company 11/03/1995 Since the only cognizable claim available to the plaintiff insurer was one in subrogation as provided in Code § 38.2-2206(G) and the insurer did not bring its action seeking recovery within the two year limitation period for personal injury actions, the trial court erred in denying the defendant's plea of the statute of limitations.
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
Denied
The court's record, as written
950005 Carr v. The Home Insurance Company 11/03/1995 Since the only cognizable claim available to the plaintiff insurer was one in subrogation as provided in Code § 38.2-2206(G) and the insurer did not bring its action seeking recovery within the two year limitation period for personal injury actions, the trial court erred in denying the defendant's plea of the statute of limitations.
Outcome words in this text: denying.
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