Masters v. Fright Farm

Petersburg County Circuit Court

Masters v. Fright Farm

53 Va. Cir. 382, 2000 Va. Cir. LEXIS 474

CourtPetersburg County Circuit Court

DecidedOctober 19, 2000

DocketCase No. CL00-222

StatusPublished

This text of 53 Va. Cir. 382 (Masters v. Fright Farm) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Petersburg County Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Masters v. Fright Farm, 53 Va. Cir. 382, 2000 Va. Cir. LEXIS 474 (Va. Super. Ct. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

By Judge Oliver A. Pollard

Plaintiff brought this suit in Petersburg alleging that the defendant regularly conducted affairs or business activity in the City of Petersburg.

Testimony presented at the hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Transfer was that both the Plaintiff and the Defendant are residents of Dinwiddie County; the accident sued upon happened in Dinwiddie County; the Defendant’s contacts with Petersburg consisted of a hearse driven through the City, as advertisement, approximately six times during the fall; area radio advertisements that could be received in Petersburg; one advertising sign on a fence in Petersburg that had not been renewed by Defendant for three years but retained on the fence by the owner of the property.

These contacts do not establish associations or activities in Petersburg sufficient to be considered regularly conducted affairs dr business activities'.

Defendant’s motion will, therefore, be sustained, and I will ask Mr. Sinnott to prepare and circulate an appropriate order transferring this case to the Circuit Court of Dinwiddie County.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

By Judge Oliver A. Pollard

Plaintiff brought this suit in Petersburg alleging that the defendant regularly conducted affairs or business activity in the City of Petersburg.

Testimony presented at the hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Transfer was that both the Plaintiff and the Defendant are residents of Dinwiddie County; the accident sued upon happened in Dinwiddie County; the Defendant’s contacts with Petersburg consisted of a hearse driven through the City, as advertisement, approximately six times during the fall; area radio advertisements that could be received in Petersburg; one advertising sign on a fence in Petersburg that had not been renewed by Defendant for three years but retained on the fence by the owner of the property.

These contacts do not establish associations or activities in Petersburg sufficient to be considered regularly conducted affairs dr business activities'.

Defendant’s motion will, therefore, be sustained, and I will ask Mr. Sinnott to prepare and circulate an appropriate order transferring this case to the Circuit Court of Dinwiddie County.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 Va. Cir. 382, 2000 Va. Cir. LEXIS 474, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/masters-v-fright-farm-vaccpetersburg-2000.