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
Rulings in this case over time

John Crane, Inc. v. Hardick

No. 101909 · Supreme Court of Virginia. Each entry below is the court's own record, with its date and a link. This page does not say which side is ahead or what an entry means.

Full case fileRecent outcomes in this court

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.

2 entries, oldest first.

  1. · Supreme Court of Virginia

    ReversedAffirmedRemandedGranted

    The court's record, as written

    101909 John Crane, Inc. v. Hardick 03/02/2012 In a suit for wrongful death arising from decedent's exposure to asbestos, under United States Supreme Court precedent construing general maritime law, the Federal Death on the High Seas Act, 46 U.S.C. §§ 30301 et seq., and The Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. §§ 30104 et seq., the circuit court erred when it permitted the jury to award non-pecuniary damages since decedent was a Navy sailor exposed to asbestos both in territorial waters and on the high seas. Evidentiary issues are also discussed. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded for entry of a final order. Rehearing was granted on specified i…

    Outcome words in this text: affirmed, reversed, remanded, granted.

  2. · Supreme Court of Virginia

    Granted

    The court's record, as written

    101909 John Crane, Inc. v. Hardick 09/14/2012 In a rehearing of certain issues relating to the appeal decided in John Crane, Inc. v. Hardick, 283 Va. 358, 722 S.E.2d 610 (2012), the jury's $2 million award of damages for the decedent seaman's pre-death pain and suffering is reinstated, and the prior opinion in this case is modified accordingly. Rehearing was granted on specified issues and the decision modified from the decision of March 2, 2012

    Outcome words in this text: granted.

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